Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00491/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00491-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

James W Barnes,

Plaintiff,

v. 

JT Shartle, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00491-TUC-CKJ

ORDER 

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 75), 

Motion to Stay Pretrial Order (Doc. 78), Motion for Leave to Amend Jurisdiction 

(Doc. 79), and Second Motion for Leave to Amend Jurisdiction (Doc. 80). For the 

following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the 

Clerk of Court is instructed to STRIKE Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint from the 

case docket. 

Second Amended Complaint

On June 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 75), which 

appears to be a refiling of his Proposed First Amended Complaint (Doc. 57). Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 15 and Local Rule 15.1 require that a party must first file a motion for 

leave to amend a complaint and receive the Court’s consent before filing it. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 15(a)(2); LRCiv 15.1(a). This case is past the point where Plaintiff may file an 

amended complaint as a matter of course. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) (“A party may 

Case 4:18-cv-00491-CKJ Document 81 Filed 06/17/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

amend its pleading once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after serving it, or . . . if 

the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a 

responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), 

whichever is earlier.”) Since Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is duplicative of his 

Proposed First Amended Complaint, and due to the fact that Plaintiff failed to receive 

permission from the Court to file an amended complaint, the Clerk of Court is directed to 

STRIKE Plaintiff’s filing (Doc. 75) from the docket. Plaintiff is admonished that he must 

first request permission from the Court to file any amended pleadings in the future. Failure 

to do so will result in cursory denial of his amended complaint. 

Motion to Stay Pretrial Order

On June 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Stay Pretrial Order. (Doc. 78) 

Plaintiff requests that the Court stay the Pretrial Order deadline outlined in its discovery 

schedule (Doc. 54) because he will need Defendants’ interrogatory responses to identify 

potential witnesses. Id. Plaintiff’s request to stay the Pretrial Order deadline is denied 

without prejudice. The Court stayed merits discovery until the issue of whether Plaintiff 

exhausted his administrative remedies before filing suit is resolved. (Doc. 77, ¶ 14 at 6) 

Plaintiff is free to file a similar request—if needed—after the Court rules on the exhaustion 

issue and before the discovery period has closed. 

Motions for Leave to Amend Jurisdiction

On June 12, 2020, Plaintiff also filed two motions for leave to amend jurisdiction. 

(Docs. 79, 80) Plaintiff requests leave to “clear up any and all issue dealine (sic) with 

jurisdiction in this case[.]” (Doc. 79) He also states, “This is a [c]ivil [r]ight [c]omplaint 

in which Plaintiff is seekine (sic) 75[,]000 in damage . . . . [I]t is these [r]ules which give 

this honorable court jurisdiction and venue in this case. So Plaintiff ask that this motion 

be noted for jurisdiction.” (Doc. 80) Although the Court is required to liberally construe 

all pro se pleadings, it cannot guess at the intent of a pro se litigant. Without more 

information explaining his request(s), the Court denies these motions without prejudice. If 

Plaintiff intends to assert federal jurisdiction over his claims, such jurisdiction has already

Case 4:18-cv-00491-CKJ Document 81 Filed 06/17/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

been asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as Plaintiff’s claims arise under federal law. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s [78] (Doc. 78) Motion to Stay Pretrial Order is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s [79] (Doc. 79) Motion for Leave to Amend Jurisdiction is

DENIED.

3. Plaintiff’s [80] (Doc. 80) Second Motion for Leave to Amend Jurisdiction 

is DENIED.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to STRIKE Plaintiff’s [75] (Doc. 75) Second 

Amended Complaint.

Dated this 16th day of June, 2020.

Case 4:18-cv-00491-CKJ Document 81 Filed 06/17/20 Page 3 of 3