Handy Jr. v. Douglas et al
MINUTE ORDER denying 69 Plaintiffs third Motion to Amend Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 3/13/2015.(evana, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01930-WYD-MEH
WYATT T. HANDY, JR.,
UNKNOWN SHIFT COMMANDER/DUTY OFFICER,
BOBBY MAYES, and
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on March 13, 2015.
Plaintiff’s third Motion to Amend Complaint [filed March 11, 2015; docket #69] is denied
without prejudice for the following reasons.
First, the motion was filed outside the deadline set in the Scheduling Order, but Plaintiff fails
to acknowledge this or provide any reason for the Court to consider his proposed amendments
Second, the Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient information for his requests to add claims and
a Defendant to this action. It is not the Court’s obligation to sift through the Plaintiff’s pleadings
to discover support for his arguments. See SEC v. Thomas, 965 F.2d 825, 827 (10th Cir. 1992)
(finding no obligation of the court to “sift through” the record in search of evidence to support a
Third, the Court reminded the Plaintiff less than two months ago of the Tenth Circuit’s
admonition against allowing pleadings to become “moving targets.” See Minter v. Prime Equip.
Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1206 (10th Cir. 2006) (“[c]ourts will properly deny a motion to amend when
it appears that the plaintiff is using Rule 15 to make the complaint ‘a moving target.’”) (quoting
Viernow v. Euripides Dev. Corp., 157 F.3d 785, 800 (10th Cir. 1998)). Here, although the Plaintiff
requests leave to file a “Fourth Amended Complaint” at this stage of the litigation, he fails to
explain why the Court should not find such pleading to be a “moving target.”
Any subsequent motion seeking leave to amend the operative pleading that fails to comply
with this order may be denied.
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?