United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
LANEY J. HARRIS PLAINTIFF
THE CITY OF TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS, et al. DEFENDANTS
O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge.
Laney J. Harris has brought numerous claims against
Defendants,  including claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and state law. On July 22, 2019, Plaintiff Laney
J. Harris filed a Motion to Amend Final Scheduling Order (ECF
No. 39). In this motion, Plaintiff moved the Court to extend
the April 25, 2019 deadline for filing amended complaints.
The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Barry A. Bryant,
and the motion was denied on September 26, 2019. ECF No. 51.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's appeal of the order
denying his Motion to Amend Final Scheduling Order. ECF No.
the Court deals with the instant motion, the Court notes that
the Court has already affirmed Plaintiff's separate
appeal of Judge Bryant's Order denying Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. ECF No.
49. In the Order affirming the appeal, the Court applied the
good-cause standard found in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
16(b) and found that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint was untimely and Plaintiff had not
shown good cause for his delay in filing it.
now to the instant appeal, the Court notes that Rule 16(b)
also applies to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Scheduling
Order. Because Plaintiff moves the Court to amend the
scheduling order to file a second Amended Complaint after the
deadline, the Court applies the same reasoning it used to
affirm Judge Bryant's order denying Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos.
38, 49). The two motions are essentially the same.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the instant appeal should
be affirmed for the same reasons it affirmed Judge
Bryant's Order denying Plaintiff leave to file a second
standard of review applicable to an appeal of a magistrate
judge's order on a nondispositive issue is extremely
deferential.” Dochniak v. Dominum Mgmt.
Servs., 240 F.R.D. 451, 452 (D. Minn. 2006) (citing
Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F.Supp.2d
1005, 1007 (D. Minn. 1999)). “The Court will reverse
such an order only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to
law.” Dochniak, 240 F.R.D. at 452.
set in a scheduling order “may be modified only for
good cause and with the judge's consent.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)'s good-cause
standard governs when a party seeks leave to amend a pleading
outside the time period established by a scheduling order,
not the more liberal standard of Rule 15(a).”
Hartis v. Chi. Title Ins. Co., 694 F.3d 935, 948
(8th Cir. 2012). “The primary measure of Rule
16(b)'s ‘good cause' standard is the moving
party's diligence in attempting to meet the case
management order's requirements.” Bradford v.
DANA Corp., 248 F.3d 807, 809 (8th Cir. 2001).
“[Rule 16(b)] [m]otions that would prejudice the
nonmoving party by requiring a re-opening of discovery with
additional costs, a significant postponement of the trial,
and a likely major alteration in trial tactics and strategy
are particularly disfavored.” Kozlov v. Associated
Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 818 F.3d 380, 395 (8th Cir.
instant case, the deadline for filing amended pleadings was
April 25, 2019. However, the Court allowed Plaintiff to file
a first Amended Complaint after the deadline had passed.
Plaintiff filed his first Amended Complaint on June 14, 2019.
Plaintiff then filed his Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 35) on July 3, 2019, and the
motion was denied by Judge Bryant.
motion explains that he would like to add to his Amended
Complaint “new factual allegations in support of [his]
three existing claims.” ECF No. 39, p. 4. Plaintiff
claims that the late discovery of the “new facts”
was due to Defendants' failure to complete timely-filed
discovery requests. Plaintiff, however, did not file a motion
to compel regarding any delay in responding to discovery
requests. Further, Plaintiff does not set forth a timeline
for when he supposedly discovered these “new
facts.” Plaintiff has not adequately explained in his
Motion to Amend Final Scheduling Order (ECF No. 39) why he
could not have added these “new facts” before the
deadline for amending pleadings or in his first Amended
Complaint that he filed on June 14, 2019. Further, proposing
new facts in an eighty-one page second Amended Complaint (ECF
No. 36-1) after discovery has been completed and after the
case has been pending for over one year would result in
prejudice to Defendants.
these reasons, the Court agrees with Judge Bryant that
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Final Scheduling Order (ECF
No. 39) should be denied. Accordingly, Judge Bryant's
Order (ECF No. 51) is affirmed.
IS SO ORDERED.
 The Defendants in this case include
the city of Texarkana, Arkansas; the mayor of Texarkana; and
five City Directors.
 Plaintiff filed his Motion for Leave
to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 35) on July 3,
2019, over two months after the deadline for filing amended
pleadings had passed. The discovery deadline had also passed
on June 24, 2019. Further, Plaintiff had already been given
leave to file a first Amended ...