United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO
Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge
U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights matter has been referred to
the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 636 (b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Magistrate Judge
Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and MJR 4.
requests that the Court strike his motion for judgment on the
pleadings and that he be allowed to correct his current
complaint. Because the motion to strike is unopposed, the
Court grants it. In addition, because plaintiff has filed so
many pleadings, defendants are confused about which complaint
is the operative complaint in this case. The Court
understands the defendants' confusion. Therefore, the
Court grants plaintiff's motion to correct and notes that
the complaint attached to his motion (Dkt. 178 at 1-30) is
the operative complaint in this case.
originally filed this action in 2015. Dkt. 1. In August of
2017, plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Dkt. 133. Subsequently, after filing an amended complaint and
with permission of the Court, he filed a second amended
complaint. Dkt. 165. He filed a “corrected”
second amended complaint shortly thereafter. Dkt. 167. Later,
he filed a motion requesting the Court strike the motion for
judgment on the pleadings in light of his newly amended
complaint. Dkt. 177. The same day, he filed a motion to again
correct his complaint. Dkt. 178. One week later, he filed
another motion to strike and another motion to correct. Dkts.
180, 182. Defendants responded, stating they do not oppose
the motion to strike and ask that the Court clarify, in light
of the numerous pleadings, which complaint is the operative
complaint in this case. Dkts. 184, 185, 186, 187.
Motion to Strike
has filed a motion to strike his motion for judgment on the
pleadings. Dkt. 177. Noting that defendants do not oppose
this motion, the Court grants it. The Clerk is instructed to
strike plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings
(Dkt. 133). The Court also denies plaintiff's second
motion to strike (Dkt. 180) as duplicative.
Motion to Correct Plaintiff's “Corrected Second
also asks the Court's permission to correct his
“corrected second amended complaint.” As a matter
of course, a party may amend its pleading once within 21 days
of serving it or, if it is a pleading requires a response,
within 21 days after service of the response. Fed. R. Civ.
Proc. 15(a)(1). In all other cases, “a party may amend
its pleading only with . . . the court's leave.”
Id. (a)(2). “The court should freely give
leave when justice so requires.” Id.
plaintiff requests permission to correct several
typographical errors. However, he has requested this
correction in a convoluted manner. See Dkts. 165,
167, 178, 182; see also Dkts. 184, 185, 186, 187.
The Court agrees with defendants that plaintiff's various
filings are causing greater confusion than clarity. In the
interests of justice, to properly put defendants on notice of
plaintiff's claims, the Court grants plaintiff's
motion to correct his corrected second amended complaint
(Dkt. 178). The operative complaint is therefore the
complaint filed with plaintiff's motion to correct (Dkt.
178 at 1-30). The Clerk is instructed to docket that
complaint (Dkt. 178 at 1-30) as plaintiff's third amended
complaint. In light of this amended complaint, defendants may
file supplemental answers to plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunction (Dkt. 100) on or before November 13,
plaintiff is reminded he may not amend or correct his
complaint further without leave of the Court. He is also
instructed that the Court will not look favorably on further
requests to amend or correct his complaint unless there are
substantive reasons for doing so.
the Court denies plaintiff's second motion to correct