Nival v. Clements et al

Filing 88

Minute ORDER granting in part and denying in part 86 "Reconsideration of Plaintiff's Request for Enlargement of Time." Though the Court declines to amend the Scheduling Order, the Court does find good cause for a moderate extension of the deadline for amendment of pleadings, through an including 8/8/12, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 7/31/12.(lygsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01695-DME-MEH
PEDRO NIVAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. JERE SUTTON, CCCF HMO Provider,
JUDY BREZENDINE, CCCF Clinical Services Director,
LYNN THOMPSON, CCCF Nurse Practitioner,
JANE DOE #1 (SANDY), JANE DOE #2 (MARY), and JANE DOE #3 (CHRISTIE), NURSING
STAFF, all in their official and individual capacities,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on July 31, 2012.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Reconsideration of Plaintiff’s Request for
Enlargement of Time” [filed July 25, 2012; docket #86] which the Court construes as motion to
reconsider the Court’s July 11, 2012 minute order denying Plaintiff’s motion to amend the
scheduling order to extend the deadline for amendment of pleadings [docket #83].
As described in detail in the Court’s July 11, 2012 minute order, Plaintiff requested and
received a 25-day extension of the deadline for amendment of pleadings. (Docket #72.) Though
Plaintiff represented that he would be able to “perfect” his second amended complaint by June 19,
2012, he has yet to file a proposed amended pleading with the Court. Indeed, Plaintiff’s motion for
leave to amend was denied without prejudice for this reason. (See dockets ##77, 79.)
Several weeks after the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, Plaintiff sought
to extend the deadline for amendment of pleadings by an additional 75 days. (Docket #81.) The
Court denied Plaintiff’s motion, finding that he had not provided good cause to amend the
scheduling order as requested.
Plaintiff filed the instant motion on July 25, 2012, asking the Court to reconsider its denial
of the extension described above. Plaintiff represents that he misunderstood the Court’s instructions
regarding the need to file a proposed amended pleading in conjunction with his motion for leave to
amend. Additionally, Plaintiff provides some indication of the claims and defendants he would like
to add if given the opportunity to do so. Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to recognize his diligence
in prosecuting this action despite his lack of legal training.

Given Plaintiff’s apparent misunderstanding of the appropriate protocol for amending his
pleadings, the Court grants in part and denies in part his motion to reconsider. Though the Court
declines to amend the Scheduling Order as initially requested, the Court does find good cause for
a moderate extension of the deadline for amendment of pleadings, through an including August 8,
2012. Plaintiff is reminded that nothing in this minute order confers leave to amend pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a). Plaintiff is further reminded that any motion for leave to amend must include the
proposed amended pleading in its entirety. The Court will not entertain any further motions to
extend the deadline described herein absent a showing of exceptional cause.