Carter v. Livingston et al

Filing 152

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 151 Motion to Appeal Decision of Magistrate Judge Denying Motion to Supplement. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 3/1/21. (ljw, )

Case 9:17-cv-00040-RC-ZJH Document 152 Filed 03/01/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 7833

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
FREDERICK CARTER

§

VS.

§

BRAD LIVINGSTON, et al.,

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:17-CV-40

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
APPEAL DECISION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DENYING MOTION TO
SUPPLEMENT
Plaintiff, Frederick Carter, an inmate confined at the Polunsky Unit with the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous defendants.
Plaintiff filed a Response and Objection to Order Denying Motion to Supplement (docket
entry no. 151). The court liberally construes the motion as a Motion to Appeal Decision of
Magistrate Judge. For the reasons outlined below, the motion is denied.
Discussion
This case has been pending since March 23, 2017. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Supplement
on May 20, 2020 and an Inquiry to Court Concerning Leave to Add Defendants and Amended
Complaint on September 10, 2020 (docket entry nos. 127 & 136). As outlined by the Magistrate
Judge in the order denying the motions, plaintiff seeks leave to amend his petition relating to
incidents that occurred in 2017. Plaintiff waited over three years to seek leave to amend to add
specific defendants and after the other defendants were ordered to answer, filed answers or other
responsive pleadings. The Magistrate Judge determined that plaintiff failed to show good cause to
1

Case 9:17-cv-00040-RC-ZJH Document 152 Filed 03/01/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 7834

grant the late amendment and failed to explain the delay. In addition, the Magistrate Judge
determined that granting leave to amend at this late juncture would be unduly prejudicial to the
defendants and denied the motion.
The court finds the order entered by the Magistrate Judge is neither clearly erroneous nor
contrary to law.
ORDER
ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Appeal the Decision of Magistrate Judge (docket entry
no. 151) is DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED, Mar 01, 2021.

____________________
Ron Clark
Senior Judge

2