United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Michael B. Hari, Plaintiff,
James Stuart, et al., Defendants.
Michael B. Hari, (pro se Plaintiff); and
I. Yount, (for Defendants).
N. Leung United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to Amend (ECF No. 35) and Plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to File Instanter the Plaintiff's Attached Reply.
(ECF No. 41). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will
grant the motion for leave to amend and deny the motion for
leave to file a reply.
Michael B. Hari filed suit on May 20, 2019. (ECF No. 1). His
application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted
on July 22, 2019. (ECF No. 11) His complaint was served on
August 13, 2019. (ECF No. 20).
after Hari served his complaint, he filed motions to compel
and for sanctions. (ECF Nos. 16 and 17). The Court denied
both motions on September 23, 2019. (ECF No. 34). Hari then
moved for permission to file a reply memorandum regarding
each motion. (ECF No. 41). It appears that Hari submitted
this motion before he received the Court's Order.
Court then issued a pretrial scheduling order that, among,
other things, set a deadline for November 15, 2019 for
motions to amend the pleadings. (ECF No. 25). Hari amended
his complaint as a matter of right on September 11, 2019.
(ECF No. 26). One day later, he attempted to file a second
amended complaint. (ECF No. 28). This Court denied him
permission to do so, noting that Hari did not file a formal
motion for leave to amend, obtain opposing counsel's
consent to amend, or comply with this District's Local
Rules, which required Hari to submit a version of the
proposed second amend complaint that showed how it was
different from the operative pleading. (ECF No. 29).
then moved to amend his complaint on September 25, 2019. (ECF
No. 35). Hari again, however, did not file a copy of the
proposed second amended complaint that showed how it differed
from the operative pleading. The Court ordered Hari to submit
such a version on or before October 10, 2019 and directed
Defendants to respond to the motion 14 days after Hari
complied with the Court's order. (ECF No. 39). The Court
received a redlined version of Hari's proposed second
amended complaint on October 16, 2019. The Court took the
matter under advisement after Defendants responded to the
motion on October 30, 2019.
Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum
Court will address Hari's motion for permission to file a
reply brief first. A party may not file a reply memorandum to
a non-dispositive motion without the Court's permission.
D. Minn. LR 7.1(b)(3). In this case, Hari seeks to file a
reply brief regarding his motion for sanctions and his motion
to compel. (ECF Nos. 16 and 17).
Court denied both of those motions on September 23, 2019.
(ECF No. 34). As a result, Hari's motion is moot. But
even if it were not, the Court has reviewed the proposed
reply memorandum and concluded that nothing in it would
change the Court's analysis.The Court will therefore deny
the motion for leave to file a reply brief.