Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

I IAFRATE & ASSOCIATES
649 North 2"'° Avenue
2 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 234-9775
3 Michele M. lafrate, #015115
4 Christine A. Davis, #021046
_ Attorneys for Defendant Officer Meelhuysen
n
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
7
Robert Joseph Krumlauf, ) NO. CV 04-0720-Pl-IX-ROS (LOA)
8 )
Plaintiff, )
L) )
H ) DEFENDANT PHOENIX POLICE
J v. ) OFFICER MICHAEL
H ) MEELHUYSEN’S RESPONSE TO
Phoenix Police Officer Michael ) PLAINTIFF‘S MOTION TO JOIN
lj Meelhuysen, etal., ) OTHER PARTIES
)
ig; Defendants. )
)
14 )__________ )
'5 Comes now Defendant Phoenix Police Ofhcer Meelhuysen, by and through
Ib undersigned counsel, and responds in opposition to Plaintiffs "Motion to Join Other
I? Parties."
IS
Plaintiffs motion seeks to add four Phoenix Fire Department employees to
10
Plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. Plaintiff states he originally sued "Phoenix Fire
BU
Department Engine 30." However, the Second Amended Complaint states no claim
il
__ against the individuals in Plaintiffs motion so their joinder is improper. See Hal
jg Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990) (causes
24 of action alleged in original complaint not alleged in amended complaint are waived);
Case 2:04—cv—00720-ROS-LOA Docurrlent 54 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 1 of 3

I see also Local Rule of Civil Procedure 15.1(a)(2) (amended pleading may not
2 incorporate any part of prior pleading by reference).
3 In the event the Court construes Plaintiffs motion as a motion to amend the
4 Complaint, such a motion should be denied because Plaintiffs motion does not
D contain a proposed amendment, Rule 15.1, Local Rules of Civil Procedure, and
(1
because the statute of limitations has run. Plaintiff alleges that the Phoenix Fire
1
Department employees failed to provide emergency medical treatment for an injury
8
9 he allegedly sustained during his flight from law enforcement on October 24, 2003.
IU In Arizona, there is a two-year statute of limitations for § 1983 claims. Marks v.
Parra; 785 F.2d 1419, 1420 (9“‘ Cir. 1988); Madden-Ty/er v. Maricopa County, 189
Il
I2 Ariz 482, 488, 828, 943 P.2d 822, 828 (App. 1997). Therefore, Plaintiffs claim
13 would be subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(8) of the Federal Rules of Civil
14 Procedure because the statute of limitations has run. Thus, Plaintiffs motion should
I5 be denied. Saul v. U.S., 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Ci. 1991) (denial of motion to
I6 amend proper where amendment would be futile or subject to dismissal).
11
IS . ii
DATED this 14 day ofAugust, 2008.
l9
IAFRATE & ASSOCIATES
20
Zi By: s/Christine Davis
F) Michele ll/I. lafrate
-2 Christine A. Davis
,,_ Attorneys for Defendant Officer
“" ll/leelhuysen
24
Case 2:04—cv—00720-ROS-LOA Document 54 Filed 08/15/2008 Page 2 of 3

1 ORIGINAL ofthe foregoing electronically filed
this 15m day of August, 2006, with:
2
_ Clerk of the Court
’ United States District Court
4 Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse
401 W. Washington
5 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
6 COPY ofthe foregoing mailed
this 15"` day of August, 2006, to:
?
Honorable Roslyn O. Silver
8 United States District Court
Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Ste. 624
L) 401 W. Washington St., SPC 53
I U Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2154
,1 Honorable Lawrence O. Anderson
United States District Court
ig Sandra Day O‘Connor U.S. Courthouse, Ste. 322
401 W. Washington St., SPC 11
13 Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2120
14 COPY of the foregoing electronically mailed
this 15m day of August, 2006, to;
I5
Maria R. Brandon
lt Maricopa County Attorney’s Office
I? 222 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1100
Phoenix, AZ 85004
lg Attorney for Maricopa County Defendants
it; Inmate Robert Joseph Krumlauf #66946
Pro Per
20 ASPC - Eyman -Ryning Unit
P.O. Box 3100
21 Florence Arizona 85232
22 By: s/Jill Lafornara
23
24
Case 2:04—cv—00720-ROS-LOA Docur8ent 54 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00720-ROS-LOA

Document 54

Filed 08/15/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00720-ROS-LOA

Document 54

Filed 08/15/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00720-ROS-LOA

Document 54

Filed 08/15/2006

Page 3 of 3