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.

Muniz v. Arpaio

United States District Court, D. Arizona

August 5, 2019

Frank Muniz, Jr., Plaintiff,
v.
Joseph M Arpaio, et al., Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Honorable John Z. Boyle, United States Magistrate Judge

         TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN M. BRNOVICH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

         I. Summary of Conclusion.

         Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Frank Muniz, Jr.'s Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint. (Doc. 70.) Defendant Livingston opposes the Motion. (Doc. 71.) The Court will recommend that Plaintiff's Motion be denied because it fails to comply with LRCiv 15.1(a) and is untimely without good cause.

         II. Background.

         On July 28, 2017, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint (Complaint) alleging, inter alia, Defendants Livingston, John Doe 1, and Jane Doe 2 used excessive force against Plaintiff in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Doc. 1.) On August 24, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff's Complaint, and ordered Defendant Livingston to answer Plaintiff's claims against him in Count One. (Doc. 8.) Additionally, the Court provided that

Plaintiff may use the discovery process to obtain the names of Defendants John Do[e] 1 and Jane Doe 1. If Plaintiff late discovers the identity of these fictitiously named defendants, Plaintiff should seek to amend his Complaint to name them, in compliance with Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(Id. at 4-5.)

         On September 28, 2017, Defendant Livingston waived service pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 10.) On October 4, 2017, Defendant Livingston filed his answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. 11.)

         On October 6, 2017, the Court issued a Scheduling Order in this action. (Doc. 12.) Therein, the Court states that “Motions to join parties or for leave to amend pleadings shall be filed by January 3, 2018.” (Id. at 1 (emphasis removed).) On March 16, 2018, the Court modified the Scheduling Order, extending the deadline to file a motion for leave to amend pleadings until April 3, 2018. (Doc. 23.) Plaintiff did not file a motion for leave to amend pleadings prior to the extended deadline.

         On June 1, 2018, Defendant Livingston filed a “Motion for Leave of Court to File DVD As Exhibit 1 to his Separate Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment” (doc. 27), which the Court granted (doc. 31). On June 4, 2018, Defendant Livingston filed his Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 29), and Statement of Facts (doc. 30). On August 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 36.) Therein, Plaintiff relies in part on his assessment of the “jail video” and “tazer video” recordings of the incident, and even lists the name of at least one officer depicted in the video, detailing how their written account differs from the footage. (See Id. at 15-16.)

         On December 20, 2018, the Court denied Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed Defendants John and Jane Doe 2 without prejudice for failure to serve under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Doc. 46.) On May 28, 2019, a Settlement Conference was held before Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine, where the parties were unable to reach a settlement. (Doc. 62.)

         On May 31, 2019, the Court set a telephonic Trial Conference for July 18, 2019. (Doc. 64.) On July 18, 2019, the Court held the Conference as scheduled, and set this matter for trial from January 21-24, 2020. (Doc. 66.) At the Conference, Plaintiff informed the Court for the first time that he would be filing a Motion to Amend his Complaint. (Id.) Later that day, Plaintiff filed the Motion at bar. (Doc. 70.)

         III. ...


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.