Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sherrod v. Ryan

United States District Court, D. Arizona

July 21, 2016

Roosevelt Marquize Sherrod, Plaintiff,
v.
Charles L. Ryan, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Eileen S. Willett United States Magistrate Judge.

         Pending before the Court are a number of motions filed by Plaintiff. The Court has reviewed the Motions and issues its rulings as set forth below.

         I. DISCUSSION

         A. Plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend Complaint” (Doc. 46)

         In January 2016, Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to name additional defendants. (Doc. 34). Plaintiff lodged a proposed First Amended Complaint, but did not comply with Rule 15.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure (“LRCiv”) by indicating in what respect it differs from the original Complaint (i.e. by bracketing or striking through the text to be deleted and underlining the text to be added). The First Amended Complaint also contained illegible text in violation of LRCiv 5.4. The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 34) for failure to comply with Local Rules of Civil Procedure and extended the deadline for filing a second motion to amend to March 24, 2016. (Doc. 44).

         On March 25, 2016, the Clerk of Court docketed Plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend Complaint.” Although the Motion does not contain a certificate of service indicating when Plaintiff mailed it to the Court, [1] because the Motion was docketed on March 25, 2016, the Court presumes it was mailed on March 24, 2016 at the latest. The Court deems the Motion timely filed.

         1. Plaintiff has Complied with LRCiv 15.1

         Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 46) fails to comply with LRCiv 15.1, resulting in confusion as to what comprises Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 48 at 3). The Court finds that Defendants’ argument rests on a misconstruction of Plaintiff’s Motion. Plaintiff’s Motion explains that the original Complaint is attached as an exhibit and that Plaintiff has bracketed the language that is to be deleted and replaced with the underlined text set forth in Pages 3-5 of the Motion.[2]For instance, regarding Defendant Pratt’s place of employment in Section B of the Complaint, Plaintiff bracketed “Corizon”:

B. Defendants
1. Name of first Defendant: Charlse [sic] Ryan. The first Defendant is employed as: ADOC Director (Position and Title) at ADOC (Institution)
2. Name of first Defendant: Richard Pratt . The first Defendant is employed as: A Director (Position and Title) at [Corizon]. (Institution)
3. Name of first Defendant: ___. The first Defendant is employed as: ____ (Position and Title) at ___. (Institution)
4. Name of first Defendant: ___. The first Defendant is employed as: ___ (Position and Title) at ___. (Institution)

(Doc. 46 at 8).

         On Page 3 of the Motion, Plaintiff identifies by underlined text the language to be added to Section B of the Complaint. As shown below, Plaintiff has indicated that “ADOC” is to be listed as the institution at which Defendant Pratt is employed (instead of “Corizon”). Plaintiff has also identified by underlined text the additional defendants to be included in Section B of the Complaint:

B. Defendants
2. (Institution), (ADOC)
3. N. Maranzo, (NP) at Corizon
4. Steve Ibrahim, D.O. at Corizon additional ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.