Benson v. Piper
- Donovan Frank
- 0:16-cv-00509
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Benson v. Fischer, Judge Leung denied Benson’s amendment motion without prejudice and set deadlines while a protective-order motion remained pending.
Michael D. Benson’s request to amend his complaint was denied without prejudice, while the defendants’ protective-order motion remained undecided pending Benson’s response.
What happened
In Michael D. Benson v. Ron Fischer, et al., Benson, who represented himself, asked to amend his complaint to add a claim, defendants, and facts. The defendants separately asked for a protective order.
The court denied Benson’s amendment request without prejudice because he did not provide a version showing how the proposed complaint differed from the current one, as required by a local rule. The court allowed him to properly refile by June 17, 2019.
Judge Tony N. Leung set May 31, 2019, as the deadline for Benson to respond to the protective-order motion. The court said it would decide that motion from the written submissions without a hearing; it did not decide the protective-order motion in this order.
The detailed version
- Benson v. Piper · No. 0:16-cv-00509
- Donovan Frank
- May 16, 2019
Background
Michael D. Benson, representing himself, moved for permission to amend his amended complaint. He sought to add a claim, additional defendants, and additional factual allegations. The defendants moved for a protective order.
Motion to Amend
Local Rule 15.1(b) required Benson to submit both the proposed amended pleading and a marked version showing how it differed from the operative pleading through methods such as redlining, underlining, or strikeouts. Benson submitted the proposed amended pleading but not the marked version.
The court noted that it had previously cautioned Benson that future amendment motions had to comply with Local Rule 15.1. It also stated that his self-represented status did not excuse compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court’s local rules.
The court therefore denied without prejudice Benson’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. The order allowed him to refile the motion properly on or before June 17, 2019.
Protective-Order Motion
The defendants filed their protective-order motion on May 10, 2019. The court stated that Benson’s response was due by May 31, 2019. After that response deadline, the motion would be considered submitted, and the court would decide it based on the papers without a hearing. The court did not rule on the protective-order motion in this order.
Disposition
The amendment motion was denied without prejudice, with permission to refile by the stated deadline. Benson’s response to the protective-order motion was due May 31, 2019. The court also stated that prior consistent orders remained in effect and warned that noncompliance could lead to remedies or sanctions listed in the order, including possible pleading strikes, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.