Carbajal v. Warner et al

Filing 252

ORDER. Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint 249 is GRANTED. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Third Amended Complaint on or before 2/6/2012. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/6/2011.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02862-REB-KLM
DEAN CARBAJAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
MYRL SERRA, in his individual capacity,
SHERRI PRICE, in her individual capacity,
CAROL WARNER, in her individual capacity,
RICHARD MAHAR, in his individual capacity,
DAVID ROMERO, in his individual capacity,
JOE QUINTANA, in his individual capacity,
BILL RAILEY, in his individual capacity,
CHRIS WELDON, in his individual capacity,
TIMOTHY HATCH, in his individual capacity,
BEA WOLFE, in his individual capacity,
BENJAMIN SCHROEDER, in his individual capacity,
GILBERTO LUCIO, in his individual capacity,
LAURIE FREUND, in her individual capacity,
JAMES DIXON, in his individual capacity,
ADAM BARRETT, in his individual capacity,
PERRY SPEERMAN, in his individual capacity,
JOEL SMITH, in his individual capacity,
ABBEGAYLE DORN, in her individual capacity,
JESSE REMBERT, in his individual capacity,
JAY LOPEZ, in his individual capacity,
MICHAEL O’NEILL, in his individual capacity,
BRYAN O’NEILL, in his individual capacity,
JEFFREY WATTS, in his individual capacity, and
ED GRUNINGER, in his individual capacity,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third
-1-

Amended Complaint [Docket No. 249; Filed January 5, 2012] (the “Motion”). For the
reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
On October 19, 2011, the District Judge issued an Order Adopting in Part and
Rejecting in Part Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#229] in connection
with a number of Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants in this matter. As part of the
Order [#229], the District Judge permitted Plaintiff to file a Third Amended Complaint no
later than November 15, 2011. See Order [#229] at 10. The District Judge also ordered
that any third amended complaint filed by Plaintiff must comply with a number of listed
conditions. See id. at 10-11. He further warned Plaintiff that any third amended complaint
filed by Plaintiff that did not so comply would be stricken and that sanctions could be
imposed, including dismissal of this case. See id. at 11-12.
On November 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Third Amended
Complaint [#236], which included a copy of his proposed Third Amended Complaint. That
same day, the District Judge issued another Order [#235] in response to Plaintiff’s Motion
for Clarification [#234]. In the Order, the District Judge amended some of the conditions
set forth in his previous Order [#229]. On December 21, 2011, the Court denied, without
prejudice, the Motion for Leave [#236] for failure to comply in full with the Orders. Plaintiff
filed the present Motion [#249] on January 5, 2011. Thus, the Court compares the
proffered Third Amended Complaint [#249-1] with the requirements set forth by the District
Judge in both Orders [#229, #235].
Upon comparison of the Third Amended Complaint [#249-1] and Orders [#229,
#235], the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint appears to comply with the

-2-

District Judge’s requirements. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#249] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall accept Plaintiff’s Third
Amended Complaint [#249-1] for filing as of the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to
the Third Amended Complaint on or before February 6, 2012.

DATED: January 6, 2012 at Denver, Colorado.

-3-