Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08132/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08132-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

1 Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 14–16 to Plaintiffs’

Proposed Fourth Amended Complaint. The relevant documents are attached to Plaintiffs’

Motion to Amend (Doc. 96) as Exhibit A.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jesse Dupris, et al.

Plaintiffs

v.

Selanhongva McDonald, et al.,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. 08-8132-PCT-PGR

08-8133-PCT-PGR 

 (CONSOLIDATED)

 ORDER

Currently before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 96) and

Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal (Doc. 97).1

 Plaintiffs seek leave to file a fourth amended

complaint. In response to Plaintiffs’ previous motion seeking leave to file a third amended

complaint, the Court granted leave to amend with the express caveat that it would be the last

opportunity for Plaintiffs to amend their complaint. (See Doc. 66.) In the pending motion,

Plaintiffs request leave to amend specifically for the purpose of substituting Special Agents

Michael McCoy and Warren Youngman, in lieu of named Defendant Selanhongva

McDonald, as the agents in charge of the underlying investigation. They do not seek to

amend the specific substantive allegations.

Defendants contend that the motion should be denied because the Court previously

advised that it would not grant Plaintiffs any further leave to amend, the applicable statute

Case 3:08-cv-08132-PGR Document 121 Filed 01/26/11 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

2

 Plaintiffs do not allege that they were unaware of McCoy and Youngman’s

association with the case. Instead, they contend that until they received the documents in

July, they were unaware of the extent of the agents’ participation, including their decisionmaking authority in the case. Plaintiffs’ argument is supported by the presence of McDonald

as Defendant in the role of decision-making authority.

- 2 -

of limitations has expired, equitable tolling does not apply, and the claims do not relate back

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c). 

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs were aware of Youngman’s and McCoy’s

participation in the underlying case and thus should have previously named them as

Defendants. According to Plaintiffs, however, it was not until July 16, 2010, that Defendants

produced for the first time “what appears to be a relatively complete set of the investigation

report and background materials for the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Operation Mountain Line

Task Force.” Plaintiffs maintain that it was only at that time and based on those documents

that they were able to discover that McCoy was incident commander and Youngman was the

second-in-command and a possible Task Force decision-maker. 

The Court’s Order stating that Plaintiffs would not be permitted to file any further

amended complaints focused on the heightened pleading standards established by the

Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. --, (2009). The Order was based on the record existing at that time and

addressed substantive amendments proposed to cure deficiencies related to the heightened

pleading requirements. The pending motion is based upon information that, according to

Plaintiffs, is newly acquired and establishes that McDonald was not the final decision-maker

with respect to arresting and prosecuting Mr. Dupris and Mr. Reed. Rather, the newly

acquired information establishes that these decisions were made by agents McCoy and

Youngman.2

 Thus, the Court’s previous Order does not pertain to the distinct matter at hand.

Despite having been filed in 2008, this suit is still in its early stages, as evidenced by

the recent commencement of discovery. Upon learning of the new evidence establishing a

basis for a claim of wrongful conduct against McCoy and Youngman, Plaintiffs promptly

Case 3:08-cv-08132-PGR Document 121 Filed 01/26/11 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 -

sought leave to amend their hird Amended Complaint. Thus, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs

that in the pending matter, justice requires application of the rule of liberal amendments. See

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1482 (9th Cir. 1997).

Under any circumstances the Defendants are entitled to test the sufficiency of any

amended complaint.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend their

Complaint substituting McCoy and Youngman in lieu of named Defendant McDonald for

purposes of Plaintiffs’ Bivens claims. (Doc. 96.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all Bivens claims against Defendant McDonald are

DISMISSED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the confidentiality agreement,

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal Exhibits 14–16 of the Fourth Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

(Doc. 97.)

DATED this 26th day of January, 2011.

Case 3:08-cv-08132-PGR Document 121 Filed 01/26/11 Page 3 of 3