Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02821/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02821-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Arthur Jerry Manning,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 04-2821-PHX-SMM (DKD)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. #25).

Plaintiff seeks to add as a defendant "the name of defendant John Doe, Commander of the

Towers Jail Facility." Motion at p. 2. Plaintiff filed his complaint in this matter on December

8, 2004 (Doc. #1), the complaint was screened on October 27, 2005 (Doc. #6), and on January

25, 2006, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #8). Pursuant to Rule 15(a)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff's request will be denied.

A party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course

at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if the

pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and

the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party

may so amend it at any time within 20 days after it is served.

Otherwise a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of

the court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall

be freely given when justice so requires.

Case 2:04-cv-02821-SMM-DKD Document 26 Filed 05/03/06 Page 1 of 2
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 - 2 -

In light of the fact that Plaintiff has had considerable time to identify the name of this

"Doe defendant" and a motion for summary judgment is pending, there seems little reason to

allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint to name an unidentified person. It also appears to the

Court that Plaintiff's present complaint alleges his overcrowding and conditions of confinement

complaints against the chief administrator of the facilities of which he complains.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion to Leave to Amend Complaint

(Doc. #25), pending the Court's decision on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. This

dismissal is without prejudice.

DATED this 2nd day of May, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02821-SMM-DKD Document 26 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 2