MARTIN v. CITY OF READING et al

Filing 71

ORDER THAT THE WTIHIN MOTION TO AMEND IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A SECOND RULE 16 TELEPHONE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE WITH THE UNDERSIGNED IS SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 4, 2015 AT 11:00 O'CLOCK A.M, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 1/28/2015. 1/29/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(lbs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ERNEST MARTIN,
Plaintiff
v.
CITY OF READING;
READING POLICE DEPARTMENT;
WILLIAM HEIM, CHIEF OF POLICE
OF THE READING POLICE,
individually and in his
official capacity;
OFFICER BRIAN ERRINGTON,
Individually and in his
official capacity,
CAPTAIN DAMON KLOC,
individually and in his
official capacity,
JOHN DOE 1 through JOHN DOE 7;
PENNSYLVANIA STATE TROOPER
MICHAEL PAVELKO, individually,
JOHN DOE 8 and JOHN DOE 9,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action
No. 12-cv-03665

O R D E R
NOW, this 28th day of January, 2015 upon consideration of
the following documents:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Plaintiff’s Amended
Civil Action Complaint, which motion was filed
June 2, 2014 (Document 58)(“Motion to Amend”),
together with
(A)

Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Plaintiff’s
Amended Civil Action Complaint (Document
58-1)(“Plaintiff’s Brief”); and

(B)

Exhibits A through J to the Motion to
Amend (Documents 58-2 through 58-4);

(2)

Defendants, City of Reading, Chief William Heim,
Captain Damon Kloc, and Officer Brian Errington’s
Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Amend the Complaint, was filed on June 16, 2014,
(Document 59)(“Reading Defendants’ Response”),
together with:
(A)

(B)

(3)

Defendants’ Exhibits A through C to
Reading Response (together, Document 59);
and
Brief in Support of [Reading] Defendants’
Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Amend the Complaint (for the
Third Time)(Document 59-1)(“Reading
Defendants’ Brief”); and

[Defendant Trooper] Pavelko’s Response in Opposition
to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Amended
Complaint, which response was filed on June 16, 2014
(Document 60)(“Trooper Pavelko’s Response”);

after oral argument on the within motion held before me on July 16,
2014; and for the reasons expressed in the accompanying Opinion,
IT IS ORDERED that the within Motion to Amend is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a second Rule 16 telephone
scheduling conference with the undersigned is scheduled for

February 4, 2015 at 11:00 o’clock a.m.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ___
James Knoll Gardner
United States District Judge

- ii -