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.

Denton v. Thrasher

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

September 3, 2019

MICHAEL DENTON, Plaintiff,
v.
TIM THRASHER, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND

          David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge

         The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Denton's Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (“Motion”). Dkt. 95. The Court concludes the interests of justice require giving leave to amend. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion (Dkt. 95) is granted and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 97) is denied without prejudice.

         I. Background

         In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights under the First and Eighth Amendments were violated while he was incarcerated. Dkt. 64. Plaintiff also contends that Defendants violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Id. In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks to add Lieutenant Daniel Bayer as a defendant. Dkt. 95.

         Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on January 5, 2018. Dkt. 1. On February 14, 2018, the Court, having screened Plaintiff's Complaint, ordered Plaintiff to show cause or file an Amended Complaint because of deficiencies identified in the Complaint. Dkt. 7. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on March 5, 2018. Dkt. 11. On March 7, 2018, the Court, having screened Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, ordered Plaintiff to show cause or file a Second Amended Complaint because of deficiencies identified in the Amended Complaint. Dkt. 12. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on April 10, 2018. Dkt. 18.

         On June 6, 2018, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against several Defendants and gave Plaintiff leave to file an additional amended complaint based on the surviving claims. Dkt. 21, 24. On November 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. 60. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion, and Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint as the operative complaint on December 21, 2018. Dkt. 63, 64.

         The discovery period ended on August 7, 2019. Dkt. 85, 89. On August 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Motion. Dkt. 95. Defendants filed a Response to the Motion on August 26, 2019, requesting the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion. Dkt. 110. Plaintiff filed his Reply on August 30, 2019. Dkt. 112, 113.

         After the Motion was filed, but prior to filing their Response to the Motion, on August 21, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 97.

         II. Discussion

         Pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

(1) Amending as a Matter of Course
A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule ...

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.