United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
proceeds in this matter pro se and in forma
pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently
before the Court are Plaintiff's Motions to Supplement
Complaint (ECF Nos. 27, 33), second Motion to Compel (ECF No.
32), Motions for Extension of Time to File Response to
Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 46, 50, 55), Motion for Summary
Judgment Questionnaire (ECF No. 52), and Motion for Inclusion
(ECF No. 61).
filed his Complaint on October 7, 2016. (ECF No. 1). The
initial Scheduling Order for this Case was entered on
February 15, 2017. (ECF No. 22). On May 8, 2017 he filed a
Motion to Supplement his Complaint. (ECF No. 27). In this
Motion, Plaintiff sought permission to add Corporal Tefft,
and other unnamed employees of the Miller County Detention
Center as Defendants. Plaintiff did not specify how these
parties were involved in the actions or inactions leading to
his case. On July 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a second Motion
to Supplement Complaint, filing a new Complaint form. (ECF
No. 33). Defendants filed an Objection to Plaintiff's
second Motion to Supplement on July 25, 2017. (ECF No. 35).
In their Objection, Defendants state the request to add
parties was untimely, and Plaintiff's would be prejudiced
by the addition of new parties at this late date. (ECF No.
35). Plaintiff responded to the Objection on August 3, 2017.
(ECF No. 37), stating Defendants' objections were
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
(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).
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).
Plaintiff's first Motion to Amend was timely, as it was
filed before May 16, 2017, the deadline set by the
Court's initial scheduling order. However, the Motion was
futile, as he did not affirmatively link the conduct of each
new Defendant with the specific injury he suffered.
Plaintiff's second Motion to Supplement was untimely, as
it was filed after the scheduling order deadline on July 11,
2017. This filing occurred past the deadline set in the
scheduling order, and within a few weeks of the Summary
Judgment deadline of August 14, 2017. Thus, the addition of
new parties would have been unduly prejudicial to Defendants.
Plaintiff's Motions to Supplement (ECF Nos. 27, 33) are
Motion to Compel
filed a lengthy second Motion to Compel on July 5, 2017. (ECF
No. 32). The Motion to Compel included as exhibits an
unexplained Christian Bible brochure entitled “Time is
Short, ” and copies of discovery requests to
Defendants. Despite a total of eighty-two pages in the
submission, it is not clear what discovery Plaintiff alleges
to have asked for and not received. Defendants responded on
July 21, 2017. (ECF No. 34). In their Response, they state
they have responded to two sets of Interrogatories and
Requests for Production from Plaintiff. They further state
that Plaintiff “has not previously communicated to
Defendants he was dissatisfied with Defendants' discovery
responses or attempted to resolve this discovery issue”
prior to filing this Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 34 at 1).
to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff must first
submit his discovery request to Defendant(s) and allow
Defendant(s) thirty (30) days to respond to such requests.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 33-34. If Defendant(s) fail to respond to any
discovery requests within the thirty (30) day period,
Plaintiff must then confer or attempt to confer with the
Defendant(s) in a good faith effort to obtain the requested
information before seeking court intervention. Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(a)(3)(B) and Local Rule 7.2(g). Plaintiff was previously
advised of these rules in the Prisoner Litigation Guide and
again on May 15, 2017, when his first Motion to Compel was
denied, but still failed to show he made any effort to confer
with Defendant(s) before filing this Motion to Compel.
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 32) is therefore
Motions Regarding ...