Jackson v. Doe et al

Filing 119

ORDER denying 104 Motion for Leave to Amend; denying as moot 114 Motion to Stay Pre-Trial Order; and denying as moot 115 Motion to Extend Time to File Pre-Trial Order. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 12/14/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 11/16/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13

ALFONSO JACKSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOHN DOE, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s)
)
______________________________________)

3:10-cv-00771-LRH-WGC
ORDER

14
15

I. Motion to Amend

16

Before the court is “Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Leave to File An Supplemental Pleading to

17

His Second Amended Complaint (CD # 12).” (Doc. # 104). Defendants have opposed the motion

18

(Doc. # 109) and Plaintiff has replied (Doc. # 112). Plaintiff seeks to “supplement” certain sections

19

of his Complaint. (Doc. # 104 at 1.)

20

Plaintiff seeks to add James Minnix, Glinda Strolk and Joshua Conner whom he states were

21

previously dismissed from this action. (Id.) He seeks to “supplement sections 1A - 1C and 2A - 2C

22

with the names of five new defendants: Warden Brooks, Warden McDaniels, Warden Baker, Eric

23

Szendrey and Rosalind Harwell.” (Id., at 1-2.)

24

Defendants oppose the requested amendment. (Doc. # 109.) Defendants identify an earlier

25

motion Plaintiff filed to amend his action (Doc. # 34) which was denied by the court on December 9,

26

2011. (Doc. # 53.)1 The Scheduling Order of July 28, 2011 (Doc. # 22) imposed a September 28,

27
28

1

Defendants note the “near identity of the present motion to Plaintiff’s previously denied Motion for
Leave to Amend (# 34) . . . .” (Doc. # 109 at 3.)

1

2011, deadline to amend the pleadings (Doc. # 109 at 2). Defendants also state discovery has been

2

closed and earlier motions to reopen discovery have been denied (id.) Proposed party defendants

3

Strolk, Conner and Minnix were dismissed by District Judge Larry R. Hicks on June 12, 2012, for

4

failing to effect service (Doc. # 80).

5

Judge Hicks, when adopting this court’s Report and Recommendation, directed the parties to

6

file a joint pre-trial order with the court within 45 days of his order. (Doc. #101.) That deadline has

7

come and as of today, no pre-trial order has been filed.

8

The court finds Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. # 104) to be untimely. Granting the motion would

9

conflict with Judge Hicks’ mandate regarding the pre-trial order. It would cause discovery to be

10

reopened and would result in a likely 6-8 month delay in this case. Plaintiff has not shown good cause

11

for his requested amendment, particularly since the “primary actors” who allegedly inflicted excessive

12

force upon Plaintiff are already Defendants in this action. (Doc. # 92 at 7-10.) Plaintiff’s motion to

13

amend (#114) is denied.

14

The court notes that Plaintiff advises the court he just received Defendants’ draft of the pre-trial

15

order which was sent to him on November 7, 2012 (Doc. # 114 at 2). The parties shall have until

16

December 14, 2012, to resolve any differences with the content of the joint pre-trial order. If the

17

parties cannot agree as to certain content of the joint pre-trial order, those points of disagreement shall

18

be noted therein. Nonetheless, a joint pre-trial order shall be on file no later than December 14, 2012.

19

II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Joint Pre-Trial Order

20

Plaintiff recently filed a “Motion to Stay Joint Pre-Trial Order” (Doc. # 114). The premise of

21

the motion to stay is predicated upon the pendency of other motions Plaintiff has filed, such as his

22

motion for copywork extension (Doc. # 100), Motion to Amend (Doc. # 104), Motion for Appointment

23

of Counsel (Doc. # 103) and Motion for Sanctions (Doc. # 107). Inasmuch as Plaintiff’s motions have

24

been denied by this court in the instant order and other recent orders, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. # 114)

25

is denied as moot.

26

III. Defendants’ Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Joint Pre-Trial Order

27
28

Defendants have recently filed a motion seeking an enlargement of time to file the joint pretrial order (Doc. # 115), which in view of the orders entered herein, is denied as moot.
2

1

Therefore,

2

(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Leave to Amend (Doc. # 104) is DENIED.

3

(2)

A Joint Pre-Trial Order shall be filed no later than December 14, 2012.

4

(3)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Joint Pre-Trial Order (Doc. #114) and Defendants’ Motion

5

for Enlargement to File Joint Pre-Trial Order (Doc. #115) are DENIED as moot.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

DATED: November 16, 2012

10
11
_____________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3