Burkitt v. Pomeroy et al

Filing 41

MINUTE ORDER; 28 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Paragraph 152 of Second Amended Complaint is DENIED without prejudice. 37 Defendant Jennifer Pomeroys Unopposed Motion to Clarify Deadline for Responding to Second and Third Amended Complain ts is GRANTED to the extent that, if the proposed Second Amended Complaint is accepted for filing, Defendant Pomeroy shall file an answer or other response to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint 14 days after the Court grants Plaintiffs Motion to Allow Filing of Second Amended Complaint 24 , by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/4/16.(morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02386-MSK-KLM
ROBERT BURKITT,
Plaintiff,
v.
JENNIFER POMEROY, and
CATHERINE BYREM, individually and as a Deputy Sheriff, Jefferson County, Colorado,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Paragraph 152 of
Second Amended Complaint [#28] (the “Motion to Amend”) and on Defendant Jennifer
Pomeroy’s Unopposed Motion to Clarify Deadline for Responding to Second and
Third Amended Complaints [#37] (the “Motion to Clarify”). The current complaint in this
matter is the Amended Complaint [#12], against which two Motions to Dismiss [#16, #17]
are pending. On December 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed a partially opposed request to file a
Second Amended Complaint. See [#24, #25]. That motion is not yet ripe. Two days later,
on December 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Amend [#28], in which he seeks
to amend an “important” paragraph of the proposed Second Amended Complaint [#25].
However, Plaintiff has not filed a proposed complaint which incorporates this change. The
Court will not permit piecemeal submission of a complaint in this matter. Plaintiff must
submit a single document which includes all the information he wishes to present in his
complaint. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Amend [#28] is DENIED without
prejudice.
In the Motion to Clarify [#37], Defendant Pomeroy asks the Court to set a deadline
for her to respond to the proposed Second Amended Complaint. (The “Third Amended
Complaint” which she references in the Motion to Clarify is apparently the complaint which
was not filed in connection with the Motion to Amend [#28] discussed above.) Although
Defendant Pomeroy does not oppose Plaintiff’s requested amendments in the proposed
Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Byrem does so, at least in part. Setting a deadline
-1-

of 14 days after the Court rules on Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Filing of Second Amended
Complaint [#24] will allow both Defendants to respond to the new complaint at the same
time, should the filing of the Second Amended Complaint be permitted. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a)(3). Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Clarify [#37] is GRANTED to the
extent that, if the proposed Second Amended Complaint is accepted for filing, Defendant
Pomeroy shall file an answer or other response to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
14 days after the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Filing of Second Amended
Complaint [#24].
Dated: January 4, 2016

-2-