Martin v. Fort Wayne Police Department et al
Filing
94
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 86 MOTION to Amend/Correct 9 Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Anthony C Martin. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 1/23/13. (lhc)
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
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Anthony Martin’s fully-briefed second motion to
amend his complaint, filed on December 12, 2012, seeking to “supplement the unknown officers
or John Does” by naming Sergeant James Ritchie, Officer Derrick Demorest, and the “911
Dispatcher on February 16, 2011” as defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. (Docket # 86.)
The Court denied Martin’s first motion to amend in September 2012, which sought to add equal
protection and due process claims, because Martin failed to show “good cause” for filing it more
than four months after the May 1, 2012, deadline to amend his pleadings. (Docket # 30, 68, 69.)
Martin filed the instant motion to amend more than seven months after the May 1st
deadline. As this Court has previously explained to Martin, 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).
In an attempt to show good cause, Martin argues that the names of these purported
defendants “just came to light.” (Docket # 86.) But Defendants respond that Martin called 911
and spoke to the dispatcher on February 16, 2011, to report the traffic stop that gave rise to this
litigation, and thus Martin has been aware of the dispatcher’s involvement since that date. (Resp.
Br. 2.) Defendants further point out that on April 4, 2012, they responded to Martin’s first
request for the production of documents and produced the narrative reports of Sergeant Ritchie
and Officer Michael McEachern, who both represented that Officer Demorest was at the traffic
stop with Martin on February 16, 2011. (Docket # 43.) Thus, Martin was provided with Officer
Demorest and Sergeant Ritchie’s names on April 4, 2012, prior to the May 1, 2012, deadline for
Martin to amend his complaint.
Furthermore, on August 29, 2012, Defendants responded to Martin’s second request for
production of documents and provided a copy of Officer Demorest’s Daily Activity Report for
February 16, 2011, and a copy of the Fort Wayne Law Incident Table, which identifies Officer
Demorest and Sergeant Ritchie as responding officers. (Docket # 65.) Additionally, on
September 6, 2012, Defendants answered Martin’s first set of interrogatories, listing Sergeant
Ritchie, Officer Demorest, and Officer McEachern as officers who responded to the February
16th traffic stop involving Martin and attaching the Daily Activity Reports of these officers.
(Docket # 67.) Thus, Martin’s representation that these purported defendants “just came to
light” is utterly defied by the record.
Moreover, allowing Martin to name Sergeant Ritchie, Officer Demorest, and the 911
dispatcher as defendants at this juncture would require that additional discovery be conducted.
2
But discovery closed on October 22, 2012, and this Court emphasized that no further extensions
to discovery would 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); see Lackey v.
Biomet, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-363, 2011 WL 3101575, at *1 (N.D. Ind. July 25, 2011) (“[P]ro se
litigants have a duty to follow the procedural rules, despite their status . . . .”).
Therefore, because Martin has not established “good cause” for the untimely amendment,
his motion to amend his complaint (Docket # 86) is DENIED.1
SO ORDERED.
Enter for January 23, 2013.
S/Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge
1
Martin’s remaining motions (Docket # 84, 93) are apparently appeals to the District Judge concerning
prior discovery rulings. Since discovery has concluded and all that remains are these appeals under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(a), a separate order terminating the assignment of the Magistrate Judge is entered
contemporaneously with this Order.
3
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?