Leventhal v. Tomford

Background

Howard E. Leventhal, who was representing himself, had several motions pending. The court addressed the motions separately even though some were filed together. The order concerned requests for case-management relief and permission to amend the pleadings; it did not decide the underlying claims in the case.

Motion for Special Master

The court denied Leventhal’s motion to appoint a special master. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, a special master is used only in limited circumstances, such as unusually complex case issues, a need for an accounting or complex damages calculation, the parties’ consent, exceptional circumstances, or matters that the assigned judges cannot handle on time.

The court found none of those circumstances. No accounting had been ordered, and the court saw no likely need for one. The parties had not consented to a special master. The court also rejected Leventhal’s allegation of a conspiracy involving the United States Attorney’s Office and the United States Marshal Service as a qualifying exceptional circumstance. Finally, the court found no indication that motions could not be handled on time by the district judge or magistrate judge.

Motion to Add Defendants

The court denied without prejudice Leventhal’s motion to join the Chief Deputy United States Marshal and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota as co-defendants. The court treated the request as a motion for permission to file an amended complaint.

The court explained that, after a party’s one amendment as a matter of right, further amendment requires the court’s permission. Permission may be denied if the proposed amendment would be futile, meaning it would not survive a motion to dismiss. The court found that Leventhal had alleged no facts against the proposed defendants that stated a claim for relief. On that basis, it denied the motion as futile.

Motion for Second Amended Complaint

The court denied without prejudice Leventhal’s motion for permission to file a second amended complaint. The court said the motion repeated an earlier request that had already been construed as a motion to file a second amended complaint and denied for the same reasons.

First, Leventhal did not submit a complete proposed amended complaint. The proposed pleading incorporated several documents by reference instead of stating the required information in the complaint itself. In particular, it did not give the defendants notice of the allegations against them, as required by the applicable pleading rules.

Motion for Telephone Status Conference

The court denied without prejudice Leventhal’s motion for a telephone status conference. It found the conference premature because responsive pleadings were not due until November 1, 2018.

Disposition

The court ordered that the motion for a special master was denied. It ordered that the motions to add the Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal and the United States Attorney as co-defendants, file a second amended complaint, and hold a telephone status conference were each denied without prejudice. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez.