Overturf v. Brewer et al

Filing 46

ORDER denying 45 Plaintiff's post-judgment motion for leave to amend. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 12/4/12.(LAD)

1

WO

SC

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
George Wilson Overturf,
9
Plaintiff,
10
vs.
11
Janice K. Brewer, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 11-1856-PHX-GMS (DKD)
ORDER

14

Plaintiff George Wilson Overturf, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

15

Complex, Central Unit, in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant

16

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which the Court dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to

17

amend. (Doc. 1, 7.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which the Court also

18

dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to amend. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff requested and

19

was granted several extensions of time to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 22, 24,

20

27, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35.) Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. On November 26,

21

2012, the Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim and

22

dismissed this action. (Doc. 43.) Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 44.)

23

Plaintiff has filed a post-judgment motion for leave to amend seeking additional

24

opportunities to file an amended complaint in which he attempts to state a claim. (Doc. 45.)

25

Plaintiff did not append a proposed amended complaint.

26

As the Court noted in its last Order, the Court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is

27

particularly broad where a plaintiff has previously been permitted to amend his complaint.

28

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996). Repeated

1

failure to cure deficiencies is one of the factors to be considered in deciding whether justice

2

requires granting leave to amend. Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531,

3

538 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff made three efforts at crafting a viable complaint but failed to

4

cure deficiencies despite specific instructions from the Court. The Court found in its last

5

order that further opportunities to amend would be futile. Nothing in Plaintiff’s current

6

motion supports that he would be able to state a claim if afforded additional opportunities to

7

amend. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

8
9
10

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s post-judgment motion for leave to amend is denied.
(Doc. 45.)
DATED this 4th day of December, 2012.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-