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)

Download PDF
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?