Messiah v. Garcia Lara

Background

The plaintiff moved for leave to file a second amended complaint. The court found that the proposed complaint did not coherently identify the factual allegations, causes of action, defendants, and relief sought.

Rulings on the Motions

The court denied the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. It stated that the plaintiff may file a new motion within 28 days, attaching a proposed second amended complaint on the court’s civil-rights complaint form. The proposed complaint must include the caption and case number used in the order, identify the facts and defendants, list each cause of action, identify which defendants are named in each claim, and state the requested relief. Any previously dismissed claims or defendants must be supported by an explanation of why they may be included. The plaintiff may not incorporate the prior complaints by reference. If the plaintiff does not timely file a compliant motion or show good cause, the case will proceed on the operative First Amended Complaint.

The court denied the defendants’ motion for an extension of time because the prior briefing schedule was vacated. The court granted in part the plaintiff’s motion for reproduction. The Clerk sent the plaintiff, without charge, a copy of the proposed second amended complaint and exhibits as a one-time courtesy because of limited court resources.

Case Schedule and Other Directions

The court ordered the defendant to file an answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It directed the remaining defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion no later than 91 days after the order was filed, unless they informed the court that the case could not be resolved by such a motion. The plaintiff’s opposition, if any, is due 28 days after service of the motion, and the defendants’ reply is due 14 days after service of the opposition. No hearing will be held unless the court later orders one.

The order also permits discovery to continue, requires the plaintiff to serve court communications on the defendants or their counsel, and states that the plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of address changes, and complying with court orders. The court warned that failure to do so may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. This order addressed amendment, scheduling, document reproduction, and case-management matters; it did not decide the merits of the plaintiff’s claims.