Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02367/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02367-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kurt Adam Oldenburg,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Laura Ridge, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-14-02367-PHX-PGR (DMF)

 ORDER

 

 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate’s Order (Doc.

25), which is a timely appeal from Magistrate Judge Fine’s order (Doc. 24) that

denied the plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint. The Court finds that the

appeal should be denied.

The Court entered an order on December 16, 2015 (Doc. 20) that granted the

plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended complaint, although the order dismissed

five counts and eight named defendants from the proposed amended complaint for

failure to state a claim. That order also required the plaintiff to timely return service

of process packets sent to him by the Clerk of the Court related to the Second

Amended Complaint. On January 4, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion to file a third

amended complaint (Doc. 22). The stated purpose of the motion was not to add any

Case 2:14-cv-02367-PGR-DMF Document 28 Filed 03/18/16 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

- 2 -

new claims or defendants in an amended complaint, but in effect was to shorten the

Second Amended Complaint by deleting the claims dismissed by the Court in order

to reduce photocopying and mailing expenses that the plaintiff stated he would incur,

but could not afford, in providing copies of the Second Amended Complaint to the

remaining defendants. In an order (Doc. 24) entered on January 6, 2016, Magistrate

Judge Fine denied the plaintiff’s motion as “unnecessary,” noting that the plaintiff

was not responsible for the photocopying and mailing costs associated with serving

the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiff filed his pending appeal on January

22, 2016. On February 4, 2016, Magistrate Judge Fine issued an order (Doc. 26)

requiring the plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed due to

the plaintiff’s failure to timely return the service packets as required by the Court in

its December 16th order. In his timely response (Doc. 27) to that order, the plaintiff

noted the pendency of this appeal, and the fact that he cannot comply with the order

requiring him to complete and return the service packets because he no longer has

a copy of the Second Amended Complaint in his possession.

In order to prevail on his appeal, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing

that Magistrate Judge Fine’s order denying his motion to file a third amended

complaint is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Under

this standard, the Court must defer to a non-dispositive ruling made by a magistrate

judge unless the Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has

been committed. The Court has no such conviction here.

The plaintiff’s basic contention is that Magistrate Judge Fine’s ruling that his

proposed third amended complaint is unnecessary is an erroneous finding that the

motion to amend had to be denied because it is futile. The Court disagrees because

Magistrate Judge Fine made no finding of futility. She merely found that there was

Case 2:14-cv-02367-PGR-DMF Document 28 Filed 03/18/16 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

1

The plaintiff is advised that this is a one-time only free photocopy. The

plaintiff will be required to pay the Court’s standard photocopying fee for any future

request for a copy of a filed document.

- 3 -

simply no need for a third amended complaint based on the reasons given by the

plaintiff for the proposed amendment, and the Court concurs in that finding since the

plaintiff is not attempting to add any new claims or defendants but is merely seeking

to “streamline” the remaining portion of the Second Amended Complaint for costcutting purposes. Since, as Magistrate Judge Fine correctly noted, the plaintiff is not

responsible for providing copies of the Second Amended Complaint for service

purposes, no significant purpose is served by the proposed third amended

complaint. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate’s Order, Doc. 24-1

(Doc. 25) is denied and that the Magistrate Judge’s Order (Doc. 24) is affirmed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Order to Show Cause

(Doc. 26) is vacated and that the Magistrate Judge shall issue a new deadline for the

plaintiff to return the service packets for the remaining defendants in the Second

Amended Complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail the plaintiff

a copy of his Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 21).1

DATED this 17th day of March, 2016.

cc: DMF

Case 2:14-cv-02367-PGR-DMF Document 28 Filed 03/18/16 Page 3 of 3