Taylor v. Preciado et al

Filing 85

ORDER granting 81 Motion to Strike Amended Complaint 75 and Ordering Plaintiff to Show Cause. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy Percy on 8/28/24. (bnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
HAILEY TAYLOR

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23cv401-DMB-RP

RICH PRECIADO, et al.

DEFENDANT

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE
This matter is before the court on the defendants Marshal County, Rick Precadio & Sarah
Jean Liddy’s Motion to Strike Unauthorized Amended Complaint. ECF #81. The court finds
the motion is well taken and should be granted without the necessity of hearing a response from
the plaintiff.
On June 12, 2024, the pro se plaintiff Hailey Taylor moved for leave to file an amended
complaint and attached to her motion a copy of the proposed amended complaint as required by
local rule. ECF #45. On August 7, 2024, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion and ordered
her to file her amended complaint “in the form attached to the motion” within seven days after
entry of the order. ECF #72. On August 14, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
ECF #75. However, as the movants now point out, the plaintiff did not file an amended
complaint in the form attached to her motion as ordered by the court; instead, she filed a different
amended complaint.
Even a cursory review of the plaintiff’s lengthy amended complaint reveals that it differs
significantly from the proposed amended complaint she was granted leave to file. Whereas the
proposed amended complaint was 47 pages long, the filed amended complaint is 51 pages long;
whereas the proposed amended complaint contained 320 numbered paragraphs of allegations, the
1

filed amended complaint contains 323 numbered paragraphs of allegations; and whereas the
proposed amended complaint contained 12 lettered paragraphs of requested relief, the filed
amended complaint contains 13 lettered paragraphs of requested relief. This is a clear violation
of the court’s order granting leave.
THEREFORE, the defendants Marshal County, Rick Precadio & Sarah Jean Liddy’s
Motion to Strike Unauthorized Amended Complaint [ECF #81] is GRANTED, and the plaintiff’s
First Amended Complaint [ECF #75] is hereby STRICKEN.
FURTHER, as the court stated in its order granting the plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint, the court has been very lenient concerning the plaintiff’s failure to meet filing
deadlines in this case, including her failure to meet the deadline for motions to amend and the
briefing deadlines in connection therewith. Nonetheless, after being granted leave to file an
amended complaint in the form attached to her untimely motion, the plaintiff filed a different
amended complaint. This is sanctionable conduct. Therefore, the plaintiff is ORDERED TO
SHOW CAUSE, no later than September 6, 2024, as to why the court should not impose
sanctions against her, up to and including dismissal of this action, for failing to meet filing
deadlines, failing to comply with court rules and, moreover, failing to comply with an order of
the court. If the plaintiff fails to respond and show cause as required by this order, the court will
impose sanctions against her, up to and including dismissal of this action.
SO ORDERED, this, the 28th day of August, 2024.

/s/ Roy Percy
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2