Glover v. Carr

Dist. Ct. erred in failing to grant plaintiff-prisoner’s request to amend his section 1983 complaint alleging that defendants-certain prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to provide him with Cialis to medically rehabilitate his penile function after having undergone surgery to remove his prostate. Plaintiff’s wanted to add to complaint proposed defendant who had actually denied giving plaintiff Cialis, and that plaintiff was unaware of identity of proposed defendant until summary judgment phase of case. As such, Dist. Ct. should have allowed plaintiff to add proposed defendant to complaint. Ct. rejected defendants’ contention that proposed defendant would be able to successfully assert qualified immunity, where court observed that such defense can only be raised by proposed defendant after proposed defendant had opportunity to litigate issue. Moreover, allegation that proposed defendant’s denial of Cialis was based upon prison policy that categorically precluded treatment for erectile dysfunction created question of fact as to whether proposed defendant could assert qualified immunity. Also, Dist. Ct.’s rationales for denying plaintiff’s request to add proposed defendant, i.e. that plaintiff would not allow proposed defendant access to his medical records or that proposed defendant was merely enforcing prison policy, were not supported by record.