Conkleton v. Zavaras et al

Filing 201

MINUTE ORDER denying 199 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 7/15/2011. (mehcd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 08-cv-02612-WYD-MEH JAMES K. CONKLETON, Plaintiff, v. ED MURO, in his individual and official capacities as a Correctional Officer I for the CDOC, and RICHARD DEGROOT, in his individual and official capacities as a Case Manager for the CDOC, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on July 15, 2011. Because justice does not require amendment in this case, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint [filed July 14, 2011; docket #199] is denied. Plaintiff does not seek to add any new claims, parties or factual allegations in this case;1 rather, Plaintiff’s stated reason for the “amendment” is to clarify his current claims, because “through the course of pretrial proceedings and procedures, this action no longer consist [sic] of Seven Claims for relief against (11) prison officials.” Motion, ¶ 2. However, the Final Pretrial Order (docket #172), which is the operative pleading in this matter, lists three claims against four defendants. Judge Daniel’s March 28, 2011 order simply dismisses two of those listed claims against two defendants, leaving two claims and two defendants to proceed in this matter. See Order, docket #190. Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint does nothing to change the nature or structure of this case. The Plaintiff articulates no reason, and the Court finds none, to justify filing an unnecessary pleading at this stage of the litigation. 1 Accordingly, the motion does not seek dispositive relief and this Court need not issue a recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

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?