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.

Townsend v. Summerville

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division

March 19, 2015

JACOB JAMES TOWNSEND, Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER PIERRE SUMMERVILLE; OFFICER SIMEON AIMES; and LT. KEVIN MELLSON, Defendants.

ORDER

BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Jacob Townsend proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action. Currently before the Court are Plaintiff's (1) Motion to Supplement Amended Complaint (ECF No. 58); (2) Motion For Sanctions (ECF No. 53); and (3) Amended Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 56).

1. Motion to Supplement Amended Complaint (ECF No. 58)

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs amended pleadings. Rule 15(a) provides in pertinent part:

(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 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.
(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

Although leave to amend is to be freely granted under Rule 15(a), the Court has discretion whether or not to grant leave to amend. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330-32 (1971). Factors to consider in determining whether leave to amend should be granted include but are not limited to: (1) whether the motion was filed in bad faith or with dilatory motive; (2) whether the motion was filed with undue delay; (3) whether leave to amend would be unduly prejudicial to the opposing parties; and (4) whether the proposed amendment would be futile. See Bell v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 160 F.3d 452, 454 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)); Williams v. Little Rock Mun. Water Works, 21 F.3d 218, 224 (8th Cir. 1994).

In his Motion to Amend his Amended Complaint (ECF No. 58), Plaintiff again seeks to amend his requested relief. In this Motion, Plaintiff specifically lists the amount of compensatory and punitive damages he seeks from each Defendant. Defendants did not respond to this Motion to Amend.

The Court finds Plaintiff's Motion to Amend was not filed in bad faith, with dilatory motive, or with undue delay. Further, there is no indication that Defendants will be prejudice by allowing Plaintiff to clarify the relief he seeks. Lastly, the amendment is not futile.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Amended Complaint (ECF No. 58) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to file Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement (ECF No. 58) as a supplement to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.

2. Motions for Sanctions (ECF No. 53, 56)

First, I find Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 56) moots Plaintiff's initial Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 53). Therefore, Plaintiff's initial Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 53) is DENIED as moot.

In Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 56), he claims there was video footage of the alleged excessive force used against him by Defendants. Plaintiff further claims this video footage was intentionally destroyed. Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of an "adverse inference" and preclusion of ...


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.