Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00717/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00717-0/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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tim Wesley Weaver, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-0717-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint (doc. 36),

defendants’ response (doc. 43), the report and recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge recommending that we deny the motion (doc. 45), plaintiff’s objections to

the report and recommendation (doc. 49), and defendants’ reply (doc. 57). 

This matter has been pending for almost a year. On March 29, 2010, plaintiff filed

a four count complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting that his constitutional rights

were violated by his validation as a gang member and conditions of confinement in

maximum security. On August 27, 2010, the court issued a scheduling order setting

September 24, 2010, as the deadline to amend the complaint, and February 16, 2011, as the

discovery cut-off date. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint was filed on December 15,

2010, three months after the deadline. Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint in order to

assert a First Amendment/RLUIPA claim regarding a religious diet—an entirely new cause

Case 2:10-cv-00717-FJM Document 64 Filed 03/04/11 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 -

of action. In addition, he seeks to add four new defendants. 

We agree with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that adding a new claim and new

defendants so late in this proceeding will unduly prejudice defendants and result in delay of

the resolution of this case. Plaintiff acknowledgment that he has “studied Asatru for many

years and has been ‘designated’ within A.D.O.C. as Asatru for many years as his designated

religious preference,” (doc. 36, ex. 1 at 23) undermines any claim of excusable neglect.

IT IS ORDERED ADOPTING the report and recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge and DENYING plaintiff’s motion to amend (doc. 36). 

DATED this 4th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00717-FJM Document 64 Filed 03/04/11 Page 2 of 2