Woodstock v. Larimer County Sheriff et al

Filing 178

ORDER. Objections stated in 170 Plaintiff's Objection to Order Denhing [sic] Plaintiff's Leave To Ammend [sic] Complaint filed March 9, 2016, objecting to the magistrate judge's Minute Order [#56], filed March 1, 2016, are OVERRULED. Signed by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/14/2016. (cmira)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00041-REB-KMT
JONATHAN (LANE) WOODSTOCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
LT. S. SHAFFER,
CHAPLAIN BRET RICKARD,
CAPTAIN PALMER, and
S. JONES,
Defendants.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO
ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is Plaintiff’s Objection to Order Denying Plaintiff’s
Leave To Ammend [sic] Complaint [#170],1 filed March 9, 2016, objecting to the
magistrate judge’s Minute Order [#156], filed March 1, 2016. Exercising my discretion
under D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2(d) to address the objection without awaiting a response, I
overrule the objection.
Plaintiff’s objection pertains to non-dispositive matters that were referred to the
magistrate judge for resolution. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a), I may modify or set aside any portion of a magistrate judge’s order which I find to
be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
1

“[#170]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

Moreover, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I construe and review his filings
more liberally than pleadings or papers filed by attorneys. See, e.g., Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Andrews v.
Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110
(10th Cir. 1991). Nevertheless, having reviewed the magistrate judge’s Minute Order
([#156], filed March 1, 2016) denying plaintiff’s Motion for Leave To Ammend [sic]
Complaint [#141], filed February 16, 2016, I find and conclude that the magistrate
judge’s order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint to name five John Doe defendants
who were employees of Aramark allegedly involved in the preparation of his meals. The
deadline for amendment of the pleadings was November 6, 2015. (See Courtroom
Minutes [#81], filed September 24, 2015.) Although plaintiff claims to have served
defendant Shad Jones with a request to produce the names of these defendants on
October 19, 2015, he offers no explanation as to why he then waited some three
months past the deadline for amendment of pleadings for Mr. Jones to respond to the
request.2 Mr. Jones’s alleged failure to do so does not excuse plaintiff from moving
timely to amend, especially since the request he makes now – to add unnamed John
Does – is the same as could have been made prior to the amendment deadline. See
Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980); Simmons v. District of

2

Nor did plaintiff move to compel Mr. Jones to respond to discovery until after the magistrate
judge denied his motion for leave to amend. (See Motion for Documents from Jones [#160], filed
March 4, 2016.

2

Columbia, 750 F.Supp.2d 43, 45 (D.D.C. 2011).
Moreover, plaintiff’s “impression” notwithstanding, the local civil rules of this
District Court expressly require a party who seeks leave to amend to provide a copy of
his proposed pleading:
A party who files an amended pleading under Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(1) or with the consent of the opposing party shall file a
separate notice of filing the amended pleading and shall
attach as an exhibit a copy of the amended pleading which
strikes through (e.g., strikes through) the text to be deleted
and underlines (e.g., underlines) the text to be added.
D.C.COLO.LCivR 15.1(a). This rule supplements, but does not conflict with, Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15. Thus in addition to meeting the other standards required for consideration of
a belatedly filed motion to amend, plaintiff must comply with these requirements as well.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the objections stated in Plaintiff’s
Objection to Order Denhing Plaintiff’s Leave To Ammend [sic] Complaint [#170],
filed March 9, 2016, are overruled.
Dated March 14, 2016, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3