Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01773/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01773-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tami E. Henry, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Universal Technical Institute; Kimberly

McWaters; Mike White; Adrian Cordova;

Mike Romano; Ken Golaszewski; Maria

Walters; Harvey Davis; Heather Gonzales;

Bernie Candeleria; Markia Baker; Karen

Mourad; Kathy Bochenski; Tom Riggs;

Karen McWaters, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-01773-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 11). We also have before

us plaintiff's motion for default judgment (doc. 40) and defendants' response (doc. 45). In

addition, we have plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (doc. 42)

and defendants' response (doc. 45). We also have plaintiff's second motion for leave to file

a second amended complaint (doc. 47) and defendants' response (doc. 49). Finally, we have

plaintiff's motion to intervene (doc. 48), which is not fully briefed. 

All of plaintiff's complaints allege discrimination, retaliation, and conspiracies

surrounding plaintiff's studies at Universal Technical Institute. On September 8, 2011,

plaintiff filed his original complaint (doc. 1). He filed a first amended complaint ("FAC")

on September 30, 2011 (doc. 8). Without seeking our leave to amend, plaintiff filed a second

Case 2:11-cv-01773-FJM Document 51 Filed 12/28/11 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 This motion did not include a copy of the proposed amended pleading showing the

proposed changes as required by LRCiv 15.1. 

- 2 -

amended complaint ("SAC") on October 17, 2011 (doc. 10). Despite plaintiff's failure to

properly serve defendants, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC on November 4,

2011 (doc. 11). Four days after defendants filed their motion, plaintiff filed his request for

entry of default with respect to the FAC (doc. 14). Plaintiff's application for default was

denied by the Clerk's office on November 10, 2011 (doc. 39) because no proof of service was

filed. That same day, plaintiff filed another motion for default judgment (doc. 40). Four

days later, on November 14, 2011, plaintiff filed his first motion for leave to file a second

amended complaint (doc. 42).1

 Defendants responded to the motion on November 29, 2011,

stating that in an effort to avoid further confusion they would not oppose this court treating

the already filed SAC (doc. 10) as plaintiff's amended pleading and granting plaintiff's

motion for leave to amend. Now plaintiff has compounded the confusion by filing another

motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on November 30, 2011 (doc. 47).

Plaintiff moved for default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. No

default has been entered by the Clerk under Rule 55(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. And defendants have

appeared in this action by filing their motion to dismiss and responding to plaintiff's multiple

motions for leave to amend his complaint. Accordingly, default judgment is not appropriate.

Plaintiff's motion is denied.

In the interests of efficiency, defendants do not oppose plaintiff's latest motion for

leave to amend. They ask only that they be offered ten days to respond to the complaint. We

agree with defendants that this compromise will clear up confusion on the docket and

encourage this action to move along. We therefore grant plaintiff's second motion to amend

his complaint (doc. 47), despite plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with the rules of civil

procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). An amended complaint supercedes the prior

complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Defendants' motion to

dismiss is therefore rendered moot.

Case 2:11-cv-01773-FJM Document 51 Filed 12/28/11 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Finally, we address plaintiff's motion for intervention. Plaintiff asks that we require

the Attorney General of the United States to intervene in this action on his behalf pursuant

to Rule 24, Fed. R. Civ. P. This motion is frivolous. Rule 24 governs situations where

someone who is not currently a party seeks to join the litigation. It is not a vehicle for

plaintiff to force the government to press his claims.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for default judgment (doc. 40).

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for intervention (doc. 48).

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff's second motion for leave to amend (doc.

47). Plaintiff shall comply with LRCiv 15.1, which requires that plaintiff file and serve the

amended complaint on all parties within fourteen days of this order. Defendants shall answer

or otherwise respond to plaintiff's amended complaint within ten days of being served.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's first motion for leave to amend on grounds

of mootness (doc. 42).

IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendants' motion to dismiss on grounds of mootness

(doc. 11).

Plaintiff is once again strongly encouraged to seek the advice of a lawyer. If he does

not have one, he may wish to contact the Lawyer Referral Service of the Maricopa County

Bar Association at 602-257-4434. If plaintiff chooses to continue litigating this action pro

se, he is reminded that he must comply with all federal and local rules of civil procedure.

See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff is especially directed to Rule

11, Fed. R. Civ. P., which governs all pleadings, motions, and other papers filed with this

court. 

DATED this 28th day of December, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01773-FJM Document 51 Filed 12/28/11 Page 3 of 3