Wheeler v. Henderson Police Department et al
Filing
24
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff' 23 Motion for Leave to Amend His Amended Complaint is Granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants City of Henderson and Henderson Police Department's 17 Motion to D ismiss is Denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file the proposed second amended complaint within seven (7) days of entry of this order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 07/26/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
EDWARD WHEELER,
8
Plaintiff(s),
9
10
Case No. 2:15-CV-1772 JCM (CWH)
ORDER
v.
CITY OF HENDERSON, et al.,
11
Defendant(s).
12
13
Presently before the court is plaintiff Edward Wheeler’s motion to amend his complaint.
14
(ECF No. 23). No defendant has filed an opposition, and the time for doing so has passed. Also
15
before the court is defendants City of Henderson and Henderson Police Department’s motion to
16
dismiss. (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, and the time for doing so has passed.
17
Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit under 42. U.S.C. § 1983, bringing claims for violations of his
18
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights. Officers employed by the defendants shot and killed
19
plaintiff’s pet dog while executing a search warrant on a property adjacent to his home. Mr.
20
Wheeler alleges that no exigent circumstances or reasonable justifications exist for the killing of
21
his pet.
22
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint before defendants filed responsive pleadings. (ECF
23
No. 5). Thereafter, defendants City of Henderson and Henderson Police Department filed a motion
24
to dismiss the amended complaint. (ECF No. 17). Instead of opposing the motion to dismiss,
25
plaintiff met and conferred with defendants, and the parties reached an agreement to stipulate to
26
the filing of a motion to file a second amended complaint. (See ECF Nos. 21, 22). Defendants
27
reserved the right to oppose the motion but did not do so.
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given
2
when justice so requires.” However, courts will deny leave to amend if: (1) it will cause undue
3
delay; (2) it will cause undue prejudice to the opposing party; (3) the request is made in bad faith;
4
(4) the party has repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies; or (5) the amendment would be
5
futile. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387
6
(9th Cir. 1990).
7
Plaintiff represents that he does not seek leave to amend in bad faith, he has not caused
8
undue delay, defendants are not prejudiced, and amendment is not futile. Defendants do not argue
9
otherwise.1 Having reviewed the amended complaint, the proposed amended complaint, and
10
defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court agrees. The court therefore finds that good cause appears
11
to grant plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
12
Accordingly,
13
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff Edward
14
Wheeler’s motion for leave to amend his amended complaint (ECF No. 23) be, and the same
15
hereby is, GRANTED
16
17
18
19
20
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants City of Henderson and Henderson Police
Department’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Edward Wheeler shall file the proposed second
amended complaint (ECF No. 23-1) within seven (7) days of entry of this order.
DATED July 26, 2016.
21
__________________________________________
_____________________________
_ _
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
UNITED
N
D
JUDG
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Local Rule LCR 47-3 provides that “[t]he failure of an opposing party to include points
and authorities in response to any motion constitutes a consent to granting the motion.” D. NEV.
R. LCR 47-3.
-2-
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?