Owens v. Connecticut et al
Filing
67
ORDER denying 50 the plaintiff's "Motion for Filing Late Documents." See attached ruling. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 1/17/2018. (Constantine, A.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MARVIN E. OWENS,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
JUDICIAL BRANCH, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO.
3:16cv898(RNC)
RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
Pending before the court is the plaintiff's "Motion for Filing
Late Documents."
(Doc. #50.)
The plaintiff requests that the
court permit him to amend his complaint out of time.
I.
Background
The following background, though lengthy, is necessary to
place the instant motion in context.
In June 2016, the plaintiff, who is self-represented and
proceeding in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action
against the City of Bridgeport and various Bridgeport Police
Officers.
The
In August 2016, the plaintiff amended his complaint.
amended
defendants.
complaint
(Doc. #8.)
asserted
fourteen
claims
against
six
I reviewed the amended complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and issued a recommended ruling. I recommended
dismissal of all claims except the plaintiff's § 1983 claims
concerning his May 21, 2015 and June 25, 2015 arrests at his home
in response to 911 calls and dismissal of all defendants except for
officers Michael Novia, Lawrence Lazaro and Daniel Feroni.
#13.)
U.S.
District
Judge
Robert
N.
Chatigny
(Doc.
adopted
the
recommended ruling.
filed
an
answer
(Doc. #16.)
denying
In February 2017, the defendants
the
allegations
and
asserting
an
affirmative defense of qualified immunity.
(Doc. #21.)
In March
2017, the court issued a scheduling order.
(Doc. #25.)
Pursuant
to the scheduling order, the deadline for filing a motion to amend
the complaint was April 30, 2017 and the deadline for completing
discovery was November 1, 2017.
On
September
22,
2017,
months
after
the
deadline,
plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint.
#41.)
the
(Doc.
The plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint.
The plaintiff stated that he wished to amend his complaint as a
result of "defendants' affirmative defenses . . . as well as
genuine material facts existing into plaintiffs' claims."
The
plaintiff requested that the court permit him to "add" claims of
"targeting, filing false police reports, conspiracy to violate
civil rights and illegal entry."
(Doc. #41.)
As best as the court
can discern from the plaintiff's motion, the plaintiff appears to
allege that there were incidents involving defendant Novia that
took place before defendant Novia arrested the plaintiff on May 21,
2015.
The plaintiff says defendant Novia had "been targeting
plaintiff" and that there had been "three prior encounters" with
plaintiff "in which false report[s] were filed."
(Doc. #41 at 3.)
The plaintiff also says that defendant Novia illegally entered the
plaintiff's
house
plaintiff's arrest.
on
June
25,
2015
in
conjunction
with
the
Finally, the plaintiff alleges, without more,
2
that defendants Lazaro, Novia and Feroni conspired to violate his
civil rights. The defendants filed an objection to the plaintiff's
motion on the grounds that the motion was untimely.
(Doc. #44.)
On October 23, 2017, I denied the plaintiff's motion on the grounds
that the deadline in which to file such a motion was April 30, 2017
and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated good cause.
(Doc.
#47.)
That same day, on the eve of the close of discovery,1 the
plaintiff filed the instant "Motion for Filing Late Documents" in
which he seeks to "show good cause."
(Doc. #50.)
The plaintiff
says good cause exists for his failure to meet the court's deadline
because of a number of reasons - including that he was incarcerated
for a portion the time, was "dealing with criminal matters," and
was depressed.
II.
Discussion
"Where . . . a scheduling order governs amendments to the
complaint, and a plaintiff wishes to amend after the deadline to do
so has passed, the plaintiff must show good cause" pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 16(b).
BPP Illinois, LLC v. Royal Bank of Scotland Grp.
PLC, 859 F.3d 188, 195 (2d Cir. 2017).
"By limiting the time for
amendments, the rule is designed to offer a measure of certainty in
pretrial proceedings, ensuring that at some point both the parties
and the pleadings will be fixed." Parker v. Columbia Pictures
1
As indicated, the discovery deadline was November 1, 2017.
(Doc. #25.)
3
Industries,
204
F.3d
326,
339–40
(2d
Cir.
2000)
(internal
quotations omitted). "'Good cause' depends on the diligence of the
moving party."
Id. at 340.
A plaintiff's "pro se status does not
relieve him of compliance with Rule 16(b)'s diligence requirement."
Valentin v. City of Rochester, No. 11CV6238(CJS), 2016 WL 5661729,
at *7 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016).
showing that
'despite
. .
.
"Good cause is demonstrated by a
having
exercised
diligence,
the
applicable deadline could not have been reasonably met' by the
plaintiff."
Soroof Trading Development Co. v. GE Microgen, Inc.,
283 F.R.D. 142, 147 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). In addition, "[g]ood cause is
not present 'when the proposed amendment rests on information that
the party knew, or should have known, in advance of the deadline.'"
Williams v. Town of Hempstead, No. 16CV1992(ADS)(AYS), 2017 WL
4712219, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017)(quoting Enzymotec Ltd. v.
NBTY, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 2d 527, 536 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)).
See, e.g.,
Valentin, 2016 WL 5661729, at *6 ("where the substance of the
proposed
amendment
was
known
to
the
movant
[earlier
in
the
proceedings], but the movant nevertheless failed to act, courts
have denied leave to amend under Rule 16."); Cummins, Inc. v. New
York Life Ins., No. 10 CIV. 9252, 2012 WL 3870308, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
Sept. 6, 2012) ("the court may deny leave to amend where the party
seeking it knew or should have known the facts sought to be added
to the complaint"); Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., 840 F.
Supp. 2d 724, 737 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)(plaintiff failed to show good
cause to add a claim
where there was no evidence that the proposed
4
claim "turns on any facts that were not available to [plaintiff]
when
she
commenced
this
action"),
aff'd
sub
nom.
Wolk
v.
Photobucket.com, Inc., 569 F. App'x 51 (2d Cir. 2014); Ruotolo v.
City of New York, No. 03CV5045(SHS), 2006 WL 2372236, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2006)("A court may deny a motion to amend when
the movant knew or should have known of the facts upon which the
amendment
is
based
when
the
original
pleading
was
filed,
particularly when the movant offers no excuse for the delay."),
aff'd, 514 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2008).
Here, the plaintiff has not demonstrated that he acted with
diligence
in
seeking
to
amend
his
complaint.
The
proposed
additional claims either predate or arise from the incidents
alleged in the operative complaint.2
The plaintiff had ample time
in which to move to add additional claims and allegations prior to
the deadline and offers no persuasive reason for his failure to do
so.
He has not shouldered his burden of demonstrating good cause.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's "Motion for Filing
Late Documents" (doc. #50) is denied.
This
is
not
a
nondispositive motion.
Recommended
Ruling
but
a
ruling
on
a
See MPI Tech A/S v. Int'l Bus. Machines
2
To the extent that the plaintiff challenges defendant Novia's
entry into his home on August 25, this appears to be interwoven with
his complaint that he was arrested without probable cause.
The
defendant does not contest that he entered the plaintiff's home but
alleges that he was dispatched to the residence pursuant to a 911
call and entered through the unlocked front door. See doc. #53-1
at 3 and Defendant's Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement, ¶6.
5
Corp., No. 15CIV4891(LGS)(DCF), 2017 WL 481444, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
Feb.
6,
2017)("Courts
in
the
Second
Circuit
have
generally
considered motions to amend a complaint as nondispositive."); Mid
Atl.
Framing,
LLC
v.
Varish
Constr.,
Inc.,
No.
313CV01376(MAD)(DEP), 2017 WL 4011260, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 11,
2017)(denial
of
Plaintiff's
nondispositive matter).
motion
to
amend
is
treated
as
a
As such, it is reviewable pursuant to the
standard specified in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a); and D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2.
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 17th day of January,
2017.
___________/s/________________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge
6
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?