Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01559/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01559-0/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

1

 Although the plaintiff’s documents is a single document, the Clerk of the

Court docketed it as two separate documents as it contains two distinct parts.

2

 Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(C) provides that service by mail to a parties’ last

known address is completed upon mailing.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Raymond L. Frost,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1559-PHX-PGR (MHB)

 

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is the plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate’s Order

Doc. #31 Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Accept

Lodged Complaint of April 17, 2009 (docs. #32 and #33).1

The defendants served their answer (doc. #15) to the complaint on April

13, 2009.2

 In a Scheduling and Discovery Order (doc. #16), entered on April 15,

2009, Magistrate Judge Burns required in part that any motion to amend the

complaint be filed no later than June 15, 2009. The plaintiff lodged a First

Amended Complaint (doc. #17) with the Court on April 17, 2009. In an order

Case 2:08-cv-01559-PGR Document 41 Filed 10/27/09 Page 1 of 4
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

3

 The Court rejects the defendants’ cursory argument that there is no

longer an issue as to whether the plaintiff was required to file a motion to amend

his complaint because the plaintiff failed to timely object to Magistrate Judge

Burns’ order (doc. #21) entered on June 1, 2009. Although Magistrate Judge

Burns first noted in that order that the plaintiff needed to file a motion to amend,

that remark was made in a footnote - the actual order merely denied the plaintiff’s

Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery on Defendants Schriro and Lyons

(doc. #19). In any case, the plaintiff timely objected to Magistrate Judge Burns’

order at issue, which denied the plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended

complaint on the ground that he could only do so through a motion to amend and

- 2 -

(doc. #21) entered on June 1, 2009, Magistrate Judge Burns stated in a footnote 

that the plaintiff’s lodged amended complaint was not part of the record because

the plaintiff had failed to file a motion seeking permission to amend his complaint. 

The plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint & Accept Lodged

Complaint of April 17, 2009 (doc. #25) on June 25, 2009. In an order (doc. #31)

entered on August 19, 2009, Magistrate Judge Burns denied the plaintiff leave to

file an amended complaint on the ground that the plaintiff’s motion was filed well

after the deadline set forth in the scheduling order for filing motions to amend,

and on the ground that the plaintiff violated LRCiv 15.1(a) because the plaintiff’s

motion failed to indicate in what respects the proposed amended complaint

differed from the original complaint.

The plaintiff argues in his Objections, which were timely filed pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), that the Magistrate Judge’s order was contrary to law

because no motion to amend was in fact required inasmuch as he had the right to

file his amended complaint as a matter of course pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.

15(a)(1)(A), which provides that a party may amend his pleading once as a

matter of course before being served with a responsive pleading. Having

reviewed the record, the Court agrees with the plaintiff.3

 

Case 2:08-cv-01559-PGR Document 41 Filed 10/27/09 Page 2 of 4
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 his motion to amend was untimely.

- 3 -

 The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s determination that the

plaintiff was required to file a motion to amend his complaint because the

defendants had served their answer prior to the lodging of the amended

complaint was in error because the plaintiff, as a prisoner acting pro se, is

covered by the “mailbox rule” of Houston v. Lock, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). See

Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir.2009) (Court held that the

Houston mailbox rule applies to § 1983 suits filed by pro se prisoners.) Under the

mailbox rule, a pleading such as the plaintiff’s amended complaint is considered

to be filed at the time it is delivered to the prison authorities for forwarding to the

clerk of the court. Houston, 487 U.S. at 276. The plaintiff stated in his verified

First Amended Complaint that it was executed on April 9, 2009 and mailed on

April 10, 2009; the plaintiff further stated in his motion to amend that his amended

complaint was submitted to prison officials for copying and mailing on April 9,

2009, and the plaintiff reiterated the April 9th date in his Objections. Since the

defendants have neither controverted the April 9, 2009 date set forth by the

plaintiff nor specifically argued that the plaintiff failed to properly comply with the

mailbox rule regarding the filing of his amended complaint, the Court accepts that

the plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed on April 9, 2009, which was

before the defendants’ answer was served on April 13, 2009. Since the plaintiff’s

amended complaint was filed as a matter of course pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.

15(a)(1)(A), the plaintiff was not required to file a motion to amend, nor was he

required to comply with LRCiv 15.1(a) inasmuch as that rule only applies to a

Case 2:08-cv-01559-PGR Document 41 Filed 10/27/09 Page 3 of 4
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

4

 While the defendants argue in their response to the plaintiff’s

Objections that the plaintiff should be denied permission to amend his complaint

because the amended complaint is largely futile and subject to dismissal, the

issue of whether the amended complaint states a claim is not properly before the

Court at this time.

- 4 -

party who moves to amend a pleading.4 Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate’s Order Doc.

#31 Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (doc. #32) are

sustained to the extent that the Magistrate Judge’s Order (doc. #31), entered on

August 19, 2009, is vacated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s [Motion] for Leave to Amend

Complaint and Accept Lodged Complaint of April 17, 2009 (doc. #33) is granted

to the extent that the Clerk of the Court shall file the plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint (doc. #17). The date of filing shall be April 9, 2009.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is

referred to the Court’s Legal Staff for screening.

DATED this 27th day of October, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01559-PGR Document 41 Filed 10/27/09 Page 4 of 4