Cervantes v. Pratt, et al

Filing 342

ORDER overruling the objections to the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation. ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 312 . Denying 268 Motion to Amend/Correct. Plaintiff may not file any other Motions to Amend the Complaint.. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 2/6/08. (DMT, )

Cervantes v. Pratt, et al

Doc. 342

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Richard Pratt, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 vs. Louis T. Cervantes, Plaintiff,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV04-1004-PHX-SRB ORDER

After this case was remanded by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court held 16 a status conference at which time Plaintiff stated his intention to file an amended complaint. 17 The Court advised that Plaintiff would have to file a motion to amend so that Defendants 18 could respond. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend which was denied on August 20, 2007. 19 In its order of denial the Court stated that the only matters that would be tried were the claims 20 for retaliation and excessive force presently framed in the existing amended complaint 21 (doc. 237). Despite the Court's language Plaintiff filed another Motion for Leave to File an 22 Amended Complaint on October 12, 2007, seeking to add numerous parties and numerous 23 claims. Defendants responded in opposition. On January 7, 2008, the Magistrate Judge 24 issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Motion to Amend be denied. 25 On January 28, 2008, Plaintiff filed an objection to the Magistrate's Report and 26 Recommendation and request for oral argument. The objections will be overruled. Oral 27 argument is denied. 28

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Although the Magistrate Judge clearly articulated the reasons for the denial of the Motion to Amend and the reasons why the existing amended complaint cannot be expanded as requested by Plaintiff, Plaintiff's objections do not address these concerns but instead accuse the Magistrate Judge of being biased and prejudiced. This objection is yet another example of the excessive and frivolous nature of Plaintiff's pleadings. The Court notes that the objections are 14 pages long and contain approximately 50 pages of attachments. As the Court previously noted this case will be tried based on the amended complaint and the matters remaining after the Court of Appeals' decision. The only issues that are before the Court and will be tried are the claims that Defendant Karkhoff used excessive force against Plaintiff and Plaintiff's claim of retaliation alleging the withholding of pain medication and medical care. No other claims will be considered. No other Motions to Amend may be filed. IT IS ORDERED overruling the objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court. (Doc. 312). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is denied. (Doc. 268). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may not file any other Motions to Amend the Complaint.

DATED this 6th day of February, 2008.

-2-