Robinson v. Arpaio et al

Filing 116

ORDER denying Pla's 57 Motion to Amend Count I; denying Pla's 64 Motion to Amend Count II; denying Pla's 102 Motion for Ruling on Count I on grounds of mootness. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 02/19/09.(ESL)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Akmal Jacoby Robinson, Plaintiff, vs. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-08-0149-PHX-FJM ORDER The court has before it plaintiff's motion to amend Count I to conform to evidence (doc. 57), plaintiff's motion to amend Count II (doc. 64), the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. 103), and plaintiff's objections (doc. 109). We also have before us plaintiff's motion for judgment regarding his motion to amend Count I (doc. 102), which we construe as a motion for ruling. On June 10, 2008, a scheduling order was entered setting September 5, 2008, as the deadline to amend the complaint (doc. 17). Plaintiff filed the instant motions to amend on October 3, 2008, and November 3, 2008, well past the amendment deadline. Plaintiff's motions to amend seek to add several entirely new claims to his complaint. We agree with the Magistrate Judge that this late amendment would unfairly prejudice defendants and accordingly we adopt the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in accordance with Rule 72(b)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P., and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). 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 IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion to amend Count I (doc. 57) and DENYING plaintiff's motion to amend Count II (doc. 64). It is further ordered DENYING plaintiff's motion for [ruling] on Count I on grounds of mootness (doc. 102). DATED this 19th day of February, 2009. -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?