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.

Benson v. Fischer

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

May 16, 2019

Michael D. Benson, Plaintiff,
v.
Ron Fischer, Group Supervisor/Officer of the Day, et al., Defendants.

          Michael D. Benson, (pro se Plaintiff); and

          Ralph John Detrick, Assistant Attorney General, (for Defendants).

          ORDER

          Tony N. Leung United States Magistrate Judge

         This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 67) and Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order (ECF No. 68).

         I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff has filed a timely motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint, seeking to add an additional claim, additional defendants, and additional factual allegations.[1] Plaintiff has not, however, complied with Local 15.1(b), which requires both “(1) a copy of the proposed amended pleading, and (2) a version of the proposed amended pleading that shows - through redlining, underlining, strikeouts, or other similarly effective typographic methods - how the proposed amended pleading differs from the operative pleading.” (Emphasis added.) While Plaintiff provided a copy of his proposed amended pleading, he did not comply with the second part of Local Rule 15.1(b), requiring “a version of the proposed amended pleading that shows - through redlining, underlining, strikeouts, or other similarly effective typographic methods - how the proposed amended pleading differs from the operative pleading.”

         In an Order dated January 25, 2019, the Court “cautioned [Plaintiff] that any future motion to amend must comply with Local Rule 15.1.” (ECF No. 61 at 9.) Again, Plaintiff's pro se status does not excuse him from following the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of this Court. See Bennett, 295 F.3d at 808; Oprenchak, 2012 WL 1247216, at *15. Based on noncompliance with Local Rule 15.1, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion to amend without prejudice. The Court will, however, give Plaintiff until June 17, 2019, to refile his motion to amend properly.

         II. MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

         On May 10, 2019, Defendants filed a motion seeking the entry of a protective order. Plaintiff's response is due on or before May 31, 2019. The motion will then be deemed submitted and the Court will issue its decision based on the papers, without a hearing.

         III. ORDER

         Based on the foregoing, and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

         1. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 67) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may refile his motion to amend properly on or before June 17, 2019.

         2. Plaintiff's response to Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order (ECF No. 68) is due on or before May 31, 2019. The motion will then be deemed submitted and the Court will issue its decision based on the papers, without a hearing.

         3. All prior consistent orders remain in full force and effect. Failure to comply with any provision of this Order or any other prior consistent Order shall subject the non-complying party, non-complying counsel and/or the party such counsel represents to any and all appropriate remedies, sanctions and the like, including without limitation: assessment of costs, fines and attorneys' fees and disbursements; waiver of rights to object; exclusion or limitation of witnesses, testimony, exhibits and other evidence; striking of pleadings; complete or partial ...


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.