Entler v. Knox et al

Filing 24

ORDER RE PLTF'S PENDING MOTIONS; denying pltf's 16 Motion to Amend Complaint ; granting pltf's 18 Motion for Extension of Time; granting pltf's 22 Motion for add'l briefing ; dfts' 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment : is renoted for 5/31/2013, by Hon. James P. Donohue.(RS)cc Entler

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

JOHN THOMAS ENTLER,
Plaintiff,

10

Case No. C12-962-RSL-JPD

v.
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S PENDING
MOTIONS

11
MICHAEL KNOX, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14

This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter comes before the

15

Court at the present time on plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint, to extend time, and to

16

permit additional briefing. The Court, having reviewed plaintiff’s motions, and the balance of

17

the record, does hereby ORDER as follows:

18

(1)

Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (Dkt. No. 16) is DENIED. Plaintiff

19

seeks to amend his complaint to reflect his cause of action and request for injunctive relief under

20

the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). Defendants argue that

21

plaintiff’s motion is unnecessary because defendants have construed his original complaint as

22
23
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S
PENDING MOTIONS - 1

1

asserting a claim under RLUIPA as evidenced by their reference to such a claim in their pending

2

motion for summary judgment.

3

While the amendment plaintiff seeks to make is a minor one, and not one which would

4

prejudice defendants at this juncture, plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint is incomplete as it

5

consists of only two pages, the caption page and the relief page. An amended pleading operates

6

as a complete substitute for an original pleading. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262

7

(9th Cir.) (citing Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546

8

(9th Cir. 1990) (as amended), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992). Plaintiff’s amended pleading

9

fails to adequately set forth any claim for relief because it omits the factual support for the claims

10

which is set forth in plaintiff’s original complaint. Thus, plaintiff would be significantly

11

prejudiced if the Court were to accept for filing his proposed amended complaint. As defendants

12

have construed plaintiff’s original pleading as asserting a claim under RLUIPA, it is in plaintiff’s

13

best interests for the Court to deny his motion for leave to amend.

14

(2)

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond to defendants’ pending

15

motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 18) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s response was received

16

on April 8, 2013 and has been accepted for filing.

17

(3)

Plaintiff’s motion for additional briefing (Dkt. No. 22) is GRANTED. Plaintiff,

18

by way of the instant motion, seeks to present additional briefing in response to issues raised in

19

the Declaration of Henri P. Fischer which was submitted by defendants in conjunction with their

20

reply brief in support of their pending motion for summary judgment. Defendants indicate in

21

their response to plaintiff’s motion that they do not oppose his request for additional briefing.

22
23
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S
PENDING MOTIONS - 2

1

Accordingly, plaintiff is granted leave to file and serve an additional brief, limited to the issues

2

identified in his motion, not later than May 28, 2013. Such briefing shall be limited to six pages.

3
4
5

(4)

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is RE-NOTED for consideration on

May 31, 2013.
(5)

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for

6

defendants, and to the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik.

7

DATED this 6th day of May, 2013.

A

8
9

JAMES P. DONOHUE
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S
PENDING MOTIONS - 3