Burton v. Salt Lake County et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 51 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 8/17/2017. (eat)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND/CORRECT
JORDAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, a
subdivision of the State of Utah;
ANTHONY GODFREY, in his individual
and official capacities; LAWRENCE
URRY, in his individual and official
capacities; and JOHN DOES 1-5,
Case No. 2:15-CV-766 TS
District Judge Ted Stewart
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. For
the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion.
The relevant portion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that a Plaintiff
may amend her complaint “only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.
The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” 1 Plaintiff has not sought
Defendants’ consent, so the Court’s leave is necessary for Plaintiff to file an Amended
In the Tenth Circuit, it is settled that “untimeliness alone is a sufficient reason to deny
leave to amend, especially when the party filing the motion has no adequate explanation for the
delay.” 2 Plaintiff filed her Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint nearly eight months after the
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Frank v. U.S. W., Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365–66 (10th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
close of discovery and only after Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff
gives no explanation for this delay.
First, Plaintiff wishes to add new claims against Urry. Plaintiff knew the facts underlying
these claims at the time she filed her Complaint. Plaintiff gives no explanation for the delay and
concedes that the amendment would inconvenience Defendants. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s
request to add new claims as untimely.
Second, Plaintiff wishes to alter her § 1983 claim to refer to the Fourteenth Amendment
as opposed to the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment standards are
identical even though they apply to different groups of government employees. No amendment
is required because the Court will analyze Plaintiff’s claims under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Third, Plaintiff wishes to amend the Complaint to more clearly assert Plaintiff’s request
for injunctive and/or equitable relief. Plaintiff’s original Complaint provides, in a preliminary
statement, that “Burton seeks . . . affirmative and equitable relief.” 3 In the prayer for relief, the
Complaint requests “such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper” without
specifying injunctive relief. 4 Because the original Complaint can already be read to request
equitable relief, the Court denies leave to allow this amendment as unnecessary and untimely.
Finally, Plaintiff requests that she be allowed to alter factual allegations to conform with
Plaintiff’s deposition testimony. “[A]n allegation in a pleading has no effect on our view of the
facts if it is controverted by depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, affidavits,
Docket No. 2, at 2.
Id. at 11.
or other admissible evidence in the record.” 5 The Court therefore denies Plaintiff’s request to
correct factual allegations as unnecessary and untimely.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint (Docket No. 51) is
DATED this 17th day of August, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
United States District Judge
Poteet v. White, 2006 UT 63, ¶ 7, 147 P.3d 439.
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?