2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-28-2008 

# W i lli am P ittm an v

. J ohn The rrie n P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-1016

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " W i ll i am P ittm an v

. J o hn The rrie n" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1122. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1122AL D- 1 9 7 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 1016

___________ WI L L I AM P I T T M AN, A ppel l ant

v. W I LLI AM M CD UFFY; J OH N FRA NK LI N; J OSEPH ERN EST; S T E VE N WI L CZ NS KY, S GT . ; J OHN P I E RR E T HE RR I E N; RO BI N R E NT E NB E RG , S GT . ; J I M KE ANE , CH I E F ; S ANDR A HE HN;

BO RO UG H O F M ETUC HEN

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 04- 4505) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. M art i ni

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 M ay15, 2008 B efore: S L O V ITE R , F ISH E R and H A R D IM A N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: M ay28, 2008)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________T he appe l l ees have a l s o as ked thatPi t t m an be e nj oi ned fr om fi l i ng fur ther 1 pl eadi ngs r el at ed t o t hi s m att eri n s t at e and f eder al court . T hi s r eques ti s deni ed. C f. M att erof Packe rA ve. A s s ocs . , 884 F. 2d 745, 747 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( hol di ng thatenj oi ni ng l i t i gant s fr om fi l i ng m er i t l es s pl eadi ngs thatdupl i cat e ones al r eadyadj udi cat ed i s an ex tr em e m ea su re tha t m u st “b e n arro w lytai lored an d sp aring lyu sed . ”). 2 P E R C UR I AM In M arc h 2 0 0 6 , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted th e d ef en d an ts’ m o ti o n s fo r sum m ary j udgm enti n an ac t i on br oughtbyW i l l i am P i t t m an, w ho as s ert ed cl ai m s of m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on and fa l s e arr es t . W e af fi r m ed the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der . See Pi t t m an v. M c D u f f y , 2 4 0 F e d . A p p x . 5 2 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). O n e m o n th late r, P ittm a n f iled in th is C o u rta “ M o ti o n to A m en d C o m p lai n t. ” B yC lerk’s o rde r, this C o u rtstat ed that “[ n ]o act i on w i l l be t aken on the for egoi ng M ot i on s i nce the above - ent i t l ed appe al has been d ec ided an d all p roc ee d ing s in reg ard to itco n clud ed . A n yfu rth er n ew m att ers in re g ard to th e c a s e m u s t b e f

ile d in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .” P ittm a n n e x t f

iled in th e D istric t C o u rt a “ M o tio n to A m e n d C o m p lain t D u e to F a c tu a l F in d in g s, A lso N o t In c lu d in g D a te, O n C o m p lain t.” T h is d o c u m e n t w a s v irtu a lly iden ti ca l t o the M o ti o n to A m en d that w as re jected b ythis C o u rt . T h e D istri ct C o u rt f o u n d n o g ro u n d s u p o n w h ich to g ra n t th e m o tio n , n o tin g th a t itw o u ld b e u n tim e lyif cons trued as a mot i on pur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 60( b) . Pi t t m an appe al ed. T he appe l l ees h a v e f iled a m o tio n to d ism iss th e a p p e a l. 1 T hi s C our tr evi ew s the deni al of a mot i on t o amend a compl ai ntforabus e of di s cr et i on. See G arvi n v. C i tyof Phi l a. , 354 F. 3d 215, 219 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t at i on3

o m itt e d ). F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re R u le 1 5 (a ) f a v o rs a llo w in g a m e n d m e n ts to compl ai nt s “w hen j us t i ce s o r equi r es , ” i n the abs ence of anyappar entordecl ar ed r eas on, s uch as undue del ay , bad fa i th, orundue pr ej udi ce. See Fom an v. D avi s , 371 U . S. 178, 1 8 2 ( 1 9 6 2 ) . Ho we v e r , d i s c r e t i o n t o g r a n ta me n d me n t s u n d e rRu l e 1 5 ( a ) “ n a rr o ws co n side rab lyaf

ter en tryo f ju d g m en t. ” V iel m a v . E u rek a C o . , 2 1 8 F . 3 d 4 5 8 , 4 6 8 (5th C ir . 2000) . I ndeed, aft erfi nal j udgm ent , l eave t o amend w i l l be gr ant ed onl ys par i ngl y , and w i l l be the “l ong- odds exce pt i on. ” W ernerv. W erner , 267 F. 3d 288, 296 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o A hm ed v. D r agovi ch, 297 F. 3d 201, 207- 08 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( s t at i ng that“the l i ber al i tyof [Rul e 15] i s no l ongerappl i cabl e once jud g m en t has b ee n en tered ”). Pi t t m an fi l ed the M ot i on t o A m end af t erthe D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed i t s fi nal ju d g m e n t an d a f

ter th is C o u rt a f

f irm e d th a t o rd e r. It ap p e a rs th a t P ittm a n so u g h t to amend hi s compl ai ntt o i ncl ude cl ai m s r el at ed t o an i nci dentthatoccurr ed on A ugus t1, 1999. N ow her e, how ever , has he pr es ent ed anycompel l i ng r eas on w hyhe s houl d have been gr ant ed l eave t o amend. N ot abl y , Pi tt m an coul d have i ncl uded i n hi s or i gi nal co m p lai n t anyall eg ati o n s p ertaining to the A u g u st 1, 19 9 9 incid en t. Ind ee d , in P ittm an ’s pr evi ous appea l , w e not ed thatthe fi r s tcountof hi s i ndi ctm entpert ai ned t o an A ugus t1, 19 99 i ncident , bu tthat hi s com plai nt focused ex cl usi velyon cl ai m s ar i si ng from his arr est on A ug ust21 , 19 99 . S ee P i t t m an, 24 0 F ed. A pp x. 52 4, 52 5 n . 3. U nd er these ci r cumst ance s , al l ow i ng hi m t o amend hi s compl ai ntaft erhi s appea l has been r ej ect edT h e A p p e llee s’ m o tio n to d ism iss is d e n ied a s m o o t. 2 4 w oul d be undul ypr ej udi ci al t o the def endant s . M or eover , ther e w as no j us t i fi cat i on for g ran ti n g reli ef

u n d er F ed era l R u le of

C ivil P roc ed u re 6 0 (b). T h ere fo re, th e D istri ct C o u rt di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng the M ot i on t o A m end. Be c a u s e th i s a p p e a l p r e s e n t s u s wi th n o s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n , s e e I . O. P . 1 0 . 6 , we wi l l s u mma r i l ya f

f i r m. 2