Martin v. Fort Wayne Police Department et al

Filing 69

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 68 MOTION to Amend 9 Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Anthony C Martin. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 9/24/2012. (cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
ANTHONY C. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
FORT WAYNE POLICE DEPT., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 1:11-CV-351

OPINION AND ORDER
On September 14, 2012, pro se Plaintiff Anthony Martin moved to amend his complaint,
seeking to add equal protection and due process claims. (Docket # 68.) Because Martin’s motion
is untimely, it will be DENIED.
The deadline for Martin to amend his complaint passed on May 1, 2012, that is, more
than four months before Martin filed the instant motion. (Docket # 30.) Of course, a party
seeking to amend a pleading after the date specified in a scheduling order must first show “good
cause” for the amendment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). BKCAP, LLC v. Captec
Franchise Trust 2000-1, No. 3:07-cv-637, 2010 WL 1222187, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 23, 2010)
(quoting Tschantz v. McCann, 160 F.R.D. 568, 571 (N.D. Ind. 1995)); see Alioto v. Town of
Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715, 719-20 (7th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases). “[T]o demonstrate good cause,
a party must show that despite [his] diligence, the time table could not reasonably have been
met.” BKCAP, 2010 WL 1222187, at *2 (citing Tschantz, 160 F.R.D. at 571).
Martin, however, makes no attempt to explain why he filed his motion to amend more
than four months after the applicable deadline. All of the events he recites occurred well before
the deadline to amend the pleadings, and thus there is no apparent reason why these claims could

not have been advanced prior to the deadline. As a result, Martin fails to establish “good cause”
for the untimely amendment.
Furthermore, the addition of these claims would likely require additional discovery. But
the Court has already extended discovery and cautioned Martin at that time that “[n]o further
extensions will be granted.” (Docket # 64.) “Courts have a legitimate interest in ensuring that
parties abide by scheduling orders to ensure prompt and orderly litigation.” Campania Mgmt.
Co. v. Rooks, Pitts & Poust, 290 F.3d 843, 851 (7th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
Moreover, “it is . . . well established that pro se litigants are not excused from compliance
with procedural rules.” Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 2008). Martin
is an experienced pro se litigator; he has prosecuted more than fifteen cases in this Court on a
pro se basis, appealing at least one to the Seventh Circuit. See, e.g., Martin v. Fort Wayne Police
Dept., 1:11-cv-4 (N.D. Ind. filed Jan. 4, 2011); Martin v. Fort Wayne Police Dept., 1:09-cv-74
(N.D. Ind. filed Mar. 23, 2009); Martin v. Comm’r of Soc. Security, 1:08-cv-46 (N.D. Ind. filed
Aug. 20, 2008); Martin v. Smith, 1:04-cv-450 (N.D. Ind. filed Jan. 7, 2005). Thus, he is well
aware of the federal rules of civil litigation.
Therefore, because Martin has not established “good cause” for the untimely amendment,
his motion to amend his complaint (Docket # 68) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for September 24, 2012.
S/Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge

2