Pendegraft v. Kreke et al

Filing 146

ORDER DENYING 134 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint out of Time filed by Curtis Pendegraft, GRANTING IN PART 140 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Curtis Pendegraft, GRANTING 143 MOT ION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion filed by Jacey Faulkner, Kyle Thole, Luke Brandmeyer, Mark Etter, Mike Arnold, Michelle Nordike. Discovery due by 4/24/2017, Dispositive Motions due by 3/23/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 3/8/17. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ALBERTO BUTILAID, MIKE ARNOLD,
)
MARK ETTER, LUKE BRANDMEYER,
)
KYLE THOLE, MICHELLE NORDIKE,
)
JACEY FAULKNER, PENNY GEORGE,
KEVIN MURPHY, BRANDI BEASLEY, and )
)
DR. FRANCIS KAYIRA,
)
)
Defendants.
CURTIS PENDEGRAFT,

Case No. 3:15-cv-816-NJR-DGW

ORDER
Now pending before the Court are the Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint filed
by Plaintiff on January 23, 2017 (Doc. 134), the Motion for Extension of Time to Complete
Discovery filed by Plaintiff on February 15, 2017 (Doc. 140), and the Motion for Extension of
Time to File Dispositive Motions filed by certain Defendants on March 7, 2017 (Doc. 143).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that leave to amend should be freely given
when justice so requires but may be denied if there is undue delay, futility, or prejudice. Life
Plans, Inc. v. Security Life of Denver Ins. Co., 800 F.3d 343, 357-358 (7th Cir. 2015). A
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). To state a cognizable claim, the complaint must
provide enough detail to give defendants fair notice of the nature of the claim and the grounds
upon which it rests and to show that relief is plausible. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 554-56 (2007). Conclusory statements or the mere recitation of the elements of the cause of
action are insufficient. Id. The pleading must contain factual allegations that “raise the right to

Page 1 of 3

relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), the
Supreme Court emphasized two underlying principles in Twombly: first, that legal conclusions
stated in a complaint are not entitled to the assumption of truth reserved to factual allegations,
and second, a complaint must state a plausible claim for relief. “Where the well-pleaded facts do
not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has
alleged–but it has not ‘show[n]’–‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id. at 1950 (quoting Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
The deadline for seeking leave to amend was April 15, 2016 (Doc. 79). That deadline
was subsequently extended to July 6, 2016 (Doc. 104). Plaintiff did not seek any additional time
until the present motion to amend (Doc. 134). Plaintiff has offered no excusable neglect or good
cause for seeking an extension of the deadline. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(B) and 16(b)(4). The
proposed amended pleading is in an unusual format that is not consistent with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8: Plaintiff sets forth a chronological statement of facts but does not provide a
list of Defendants, fails to make a statement of the grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction, does not
include a statement that Plaintiff is entitled to relief, includes the names of potential Defendants
but asserts no claim against them, and does not make any demand for any particular relief. Such
a pleading is wholly deficient. The untimeliness of the motion and the insufficiency of the
proposed pleading are sufficient grounds to deny the motion.
Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to seek leave in order to add more Defendants and/or
claims and permitting an amendment at this late stage of the proceedings would be prejudical.
Granting leave to amend would require the reopening of discovery, which closed on February 17,
2017, because Plaintiff seeks to add additional Defendants and additional claims against the
current Defendants. Defendants will be prejudiced because they will be required to go through

Page 2 of 3

the expense of re-deposing Plaintiff and undergoing additional rounds of written discovery and
depositions. Granting leave to amend would also unnecessarily delay resolution of this matter
(at least one set of Defendants has filed a motion for summary judgment). Plaintiff’s motion to
amend is accordingly DENIED (Doc. 134).
Plaintiff further seeks a two month extension of time to request documents from
Defendants that were discussed at Plaintiff’s February 3, 2017 deposition. The Motion is
GRANTED IN PART (Doc. 140). Defendants shall produce to Plaintiff forthwith and no later
than March 14, 2017 the documents that were discussed or identified at Plaintiff’s February 3,
2017 deposition that have not already been served. Plaintiff shall have until April 24, 2017 to
propound any additional discovery (keeping in mind that Defendants shall have a full 30 days to
respond). Plaintiff is reminded that his response to the pending motion for summary judgment
(Doc. 141) is due by April 3, 2017.

Finally, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED.

dispositive motion filing deadline is extended to March 23, 2017.
DATED: March 8, 2017

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3

The