Free Order on Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

I i P
. · ` ` IN Tl-IE UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT COURT -- _
I ‘ 7 ` FOR THE DISTRICT or ARIZONA _ l _
. l l Q; Nick Tarr, ‘ No. Civ. 04-0411-PHX-MS ¤
10 ‘ Plaintiff, ORDER an I _
11. vs. ‘ ` _ ‘ 4 -
13 _ Maricopa County, et. al., _ · _ _ . _ ‘· = ._ _
- . .--Defendants. · g · 4 `
16 Pending before. the Coiirtis Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint (Doo. 44). Also ._
17_‘· pending are Defendants ll/lotion to Strike (Doc. 50-2) 8l;ld.D6fBt1d8I’lIS` Mellen for I
l 18 Q Leave to liIea'R_espense(D¤¤_ 50-1)_ 1 1 1 I l.
_ 19 · Plaintiffs motion seeks leave to amend pursuant to-Rule 15(a).,of the Federal __ _
20 ‘-Rules of Civil Precedure, Plaintiff seeks to add a claim of punitive damages. He . _
l .21 also seeksto reinstate claims againstSheriff Joe-Arpaie,on the-basislefa statement I l
22 l allegedly written by an officer who .-was prese`nt_-during the clay the 'underlyingt
p 23, l linpidents occurred- -Deferidants' motion seeks to strike Plaintiff‘sReply on grouncls -‘—·
24 ' that Plaintiff raised nevv grounds, and- seeks to respond to the Reply. ` _ _ ‘·-_ ‘
l ` 25 I. DE-FENDANTS'.-MOTION ._ p . ` _ _ _-
-_ I 26 i As a preliminary matter, the Court denie-s·*Defend·ants‘ Mottengto Strike .ancl._
l ‘ 27 - Defendants Motion for Leave of Court- to Respond to Plaintiffs-Motion to Amend
l ` I 28, I (Doc. 50-1, 50-2). ·-Defendantstargued in their.Respe-nsle that_tlne-_li/lotion to_Amend _ I Y
ase 2:04-cv-00411+ll/IEA Document 54 · Filed 07/18/2005 Page.1 of 4 l

, _ L ‘* . - - ` 2 l . _
. ` 1 was improper, in part, because. it was tiled outside the time allowedby the .
_` 2 scheduling order. Plaintifl‘s_ Reply discussed Ruie-16 in response to this argument.
-- _ 3 E The Court will therefere_not.-strike the Reply. Because the Court denies the-Motion ‘ =`= $7
4 to_Amend., _the Court need not consider Defendants_' Response to the Reply. l 7
5 1 ll.- PLAlNTlFF'S MQIION all i 1 9 l
`6 p 9 Plaintiff is correct that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) generally allows for 7 7
l 7 s liberal amendments topleadings. FED. R. Civ. P., Rule- 15(a); v.. Kfayporti l
l . l 8- Package Express, 885. F.2d 531, 537 -(9th Cir. 1989). However.- the‘pre—t7rial-I
. -scheduIing order entered in this case provided that all motions to amend the ’
- __ 10 Complaintorjoin additional parties were required tobe tiled by July 2.1.2004. [Doo.
11 9]. .PIaintiff's motion-to amend "was tiled subseguent to this deadline. lrneicrore,
9 r 12 Federal Rule of7CiviI Prooedure 16(b), ratherthan Rule 15(a) controls. Ft-ao. R.-Civ`. r
13 P., Rule 16(b); 975 F.2d 604,_607eO9 (9*" 9
l 14 1 Ci7r`.1992). Pursuant to Rule ‘l6(b), Plain-tiff must show good cause for ngotghaying
7 7 15 l amended his Complaint before the time speeireu in the scheduling order expired.
i- -16 l Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608-09._Thls standard 'lprirnarily considers the diligence ofthe
l l , 17 l . party seeking the amendmentf' lg. at--609;* §_e_e;gl_s£
--1 ‘i‘l * 7 7 1s? zsz me 1271:, 12e4+,e5 (Q"` Cir. 2000). in i 2 P 9 r
° _ 19 l Plaintiff has a "Response to Defendants -lt/lotion for Leave of Court to
l_ - . 20Q ° Respond 7to Plaintiffs Reply- and Defndantsl Motion- to Strike Reply," in which ._ 2 '-1l
_ 21 ` 1 7PIaintiff asks that the Court-amend the SChQdiUilRQi=DEd9fr8ftd allow amend ment of -_i_ 7.s`' an l
9 r r 22 1 Complaint. Plaintiff has neirer filed a propermetion to amendthe schedulingorder. `·7. l
23 Under these circumstances, denial of the motion to amend-is proper based en-.__' l
24- Plaintiffs failure to file an appropriate motion._'_,,l_e_hgsog, 975 F.2d at 608_.:_ l l` - _ _' _
7ase 2:04—cv—00411—IVIEPr Document 54 - ?F-iled 07/18/2005 Page of 4 _ _

1 Additionally, etree Plaintiffs Reply to osre¤¤s¤zsA· Response is treated asa de A A
_ 2 faeto motion to amend thesched-uling,:·.order, the motion is properly deniedni _
_ _ 3 i Between the dateof the schedu-iing order andthe date amendments were dee, and A
4/ even up_to the date of the g-motion for a proteetive order, Plaintiff did not take the
A - ‘ 5 l requisite steps to un-coverthe information- he new nods significant. This-·is true eyen
y y 6 l though Plaintiff was aware that Officer Frakes,-the officer who "re‘oently" made the ``-_ ;;_
_ _ --7 statement about- Sheriff Arpaio, was present on the day of the incident at issue.A ‘
_· A A 8 A Plaintiff alleges that the motion for aproteotive order tiled byA Defendants in
D D 9 February, 2005, impeded hisability to procure the deposition of Officer-Frakes, _ A
D -10 whiohwould have led him to the information in question. He asserts, that had. , r
A A 11 Defendants not done so, he could hayetiled a timely amendment. , The ‘-Geurt is i
A 12* unpersuaded that the m·otlon.D fora protective order filed by Defendants after the - ,
13- deadline for motions-__to amend and after- the --i'· elaims against Sheriff Arpaie were , A A
i D 14 dismissed impeded·Plaintift‘_s ability to develop-a__ case against Sheriff Arpaio.
- i -15 I _Indeed,_even now, _PlaiAntiff only refers to. an unmarked type—written-docurn.entA.by ap A
ADF-A A 16 third party police -.oftiAeer. ltstates only that Sheriff Arpaio was te-lephoned-and
17 inquired who Plaintiff was on the day of his arrest- _ A _ Ay g A ··‘_
18i It was Plaintiffs lack o_f diligence, rather Athan-any unavailability caused by the AA AA D
·A -_ 19- motion for a .protectiveQorder med by Defendants, thatcaused Plaintiffs failure to_ _
20 amend the Complaint. Plaintiff has also failed to establish good cause for failing to _
A Q2? raise 8 punitive damages claim earlier; Amendment pursuant to Rule 16-is `
A 22- i appropriate. 975 F.2d at 608—09; Qggggi, 232 F.3d at 1294-95 C-iii.; _g_. i ,,_ _
l y 23 i -2000). D D , , A A YDDAA
, A24 § . IT IS THEREFDRE DORDERED-·dertying Piaintift‘sD Motion to Amend Drimplai-nt y
_ i 25. (Doe. 44). A g _ 4 y A A jD A , A
27/ - Ai A A This .weuld_ also be true were Piaintiffs Response to DefeAndanAtsl AA L
28- y i Response considered. A A A- y _ y
1 A A ase 2:04-cv—00411-IVIEAD Document 54 A sliled 07/18/2005 Page 3 of 4 A -

R r t 4 t 4 r r rtur u
[ _ .. - R _
1 v ;-ITISFURTHER9RDERED'de-nying'Defendants'Niotionto Strika(Doc.50-2)`and _. .
- 1 Defendants Motion for Leave to tile a Response (Doc,50-1). _ l
u 3 _IT IS F-URTHER-QRBERED striking .PRiaiLntiftYs Response to Defendants Motion _i
4- for Leave of Court to Resgondto Plaintiffs Repiy and DSfGHdBijt$°.-MOtitJh to Strike ’
5_ Reply (Doc. -51). ` R ‘ ._ l R ` .
6 DATED this of'. to , 2.005.- l = l
7 i “ t oeso t R
8 ._ t -‘ __ r u .. ·
i-- - l 9 no R ; 'f A’A ‘ l l ·- l R
10 I l -· . _ ‘ . United States Magistrate Judge _
12 g u u _ u u R w r R r u
X4 n n _- -. _ n ‘- , -.-· ·
18Q a _. f .- R
R u 2;% - u _ ‘ u ` _ _ _--u_R_ ., `‘R_ R
22i R I I I I RR _ - ` an " l- W I-_ ·__-_
E. 23- _ I I I I . I -.»- I- I g ·_ _ -.
r 28 - u _‘ an I. u R __ u
a ase.2:t)Zi—cv—OO4_11—I\AIfA _ Dooument 54 -4I;iIed 07/1.8/2005 l Rage_ 4.R0f4 . i

Case 2:04-cv-00411-MEA

Document 54

Filed 07/18/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00411-MEA

Document 54

Filed 07/18/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00411-MEA

Document 54

Filed 07/18/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00411-MEA

Document 54

Filed 07/18/2005

Page 4 of 4