Free Order on Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. Charles Ryan, et al., Defendants. Mark E. Hampton, Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIV 03-1706 PHX NVW (VAM) O R D E R

In this lawsuit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, plaintiff challenges his confinement in SMU-II. Plaintiff now seeks to (Doc. 44). The Court has

amend his complaint to clarify his allegations. Defendants oppose the Motion to Amend.

(Doc. 45).

read through the Motion, Opposition and Reply.

Although this

lawsuit has been pending for some time, service on defendants took considerable time and discovery only began this year. Rule 15, F.R.Civ.P., provides that leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires. Given the fact that

plaintiff was unrepresented until recently and was without legal resources, the Court believes the Motion to Amend is proper. Defendants have raised several defenses to the claims as set forth in the Amended Complaint, however, these should be decided after discovery, briefing and argument. The original Complaint named the same three defendants that the Amended Complaint now seeks to name. The Court substituted in

for defendant Ryan, the current director of the Arizona Department Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW Document 48 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of Corrections, Dora Schriro.

Plaintiff does not seek to name the As a

current director of the Arizona Department of Corrections.

result, the Court has concerns that the request for injunctive relief could not be carried out with the current defendants should plaintiff prevail. unnamed. Complaint. The Court believes that additional discovery time and an extension on the deadline for dispositive motions is appropriate. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint. (Doc. 44). Plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaint, The Court is unclear why defendant Schriro is

However, the Court will allow the filing of the Amended

lodged on July 26, 2005, shall be filed as the Amended Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for plaintiff shall serve the Amended Complaint on counsel for defendants. Defendants shall

have ten days following service to respond to the amended pleading. Rule 15(a), F.R.Civ.P.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have until December 23, 2005 to conduct additional discovery. Discovery

disputes shall be brought to the attention of the Court no later than January 20, 2006. Dispositive motions shall be filed no

later than February 28, 2006. DATED this 27th day of September, 2005.

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 48 2 Filed 09/30/2005

Page 2 of 2