claim for the transfer, we find that the absence of pre-deprivation notice or a hearing did not,, in itself, violate his due process rights. V. PKI and PRD’s Claims Leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 15. Although refusals to grant leave to amend are reviewed for abuse of discretion, see Rolo v. City Investing Co. Liquidating Trust, 155 F.3d 644, 654 (3d Cir.1998), it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend unless “plaintiff’s delay in seeking amendment is undue, made in bad faith, prejudicial to the opposing party, or [the amendment] fails to cure the jurisdictional defect,” Berkshire Fashions, Inc. v. M.V. Hakusan II, 954 F.2d 874, 886 (3d Cir.1992); see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) (<HOLDING>); Boileau v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 730 F.2d
holding that although district courts have discretion to deny leave to amend they may only do so for a substantial reason holding leave to amend should be freely granted absent a showing of undue delay bad faith undue prejudice or futility holding that it is abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend absent a clear or declared reason such as delay bad faith prejudice or a repeated failure to cure a problem in the complaint holding that futility prejudice or bad faith may justify refusing to grant leave to amend recognizing several reasons to deny leave to amend a complaint