Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08005/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08005-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 

Joe Newman, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Show Low Police Department, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-08005-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s “Amend 

Complaint” Filed July 1, 2014 (Doc. 63). The Court now rules on the motion. 

I. Background

 On July 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Amend Complaint,” the 

substance of which was to “enter new evidence” that Plaintiff had complied with the 

commands of the Show Low Police Department officers during his arrest. (Doc. 58 at 1). 

Plaintiff offered as new evidence the “car cam” video documenting Plaintiff’s arrest as 

well as a “trial video” and a police report. (Id.) 

 Defendants now move to strike Plaintiff’s filing on the basis that it is an amended 

complaint filed in violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 16. (Doc. 63 at 1-

2). 

II. Analysis

 Although Defendants analyze the timeliness and propriety of Plaintiff’s filing 

under the standards for an amended complaint, (id. at 1-3), the Court construes the filing 

as a miscellaneous notice and not as an amended complaint. “There is no controlling 

Case 3:13-cv-08005-JAT Document 64 Filed 08/01/14 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

magic in the title, name, or description which a party litigant gives to his pleading. The 

substance rather than the name or denomination given to a pleading is the yardstick for 

determining its character and sufficiency.” Rubenstein v. United States, 227 F.2d 638, 

642 (10th Cir. 1955); see also Alerus Fin., N.A. v. Lamb, 2003 ND 158, ¶ 7, 670 N.W.2d 

351 (2003) (“. . . we will consider the motion’s substance rather than its title to determine 

the proper nature of the pleading.”); Boise Cascade Corp. v. State ex rel. Oregon State 

Bd. of Forestry, 991 P.2d 563, 571 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). 

 Because the substance of Plaintiff’s July 1 filing is clearly to provide notice of 

certain items of evidence, the Court will not construe it as an amended complaint and 

Defendants need not file an answer. 

III. Conclusion

 For the foregoing reasons, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s “Amend 

Complaint” Filed July 1, 2014 (Doc. 63). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall not file an answer or other 

responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s July 1, 2014 “Amend Complaint” (Doc. 58), which the 

Court deems not to be an amended complaint. 

 Dated this 31st day of July, 2014. 

Case 3:13-cv-08005-JAT Document 64 Filed 08/01/14 Page 2 of 2