UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

ANTHONY MATTHEWS, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 3:18-cv-26 

vs. 

DAYTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

 Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman 

 Defendants. 

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER AND ENTRY: (1) GRANTING, NUNC PRO TUNC, PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. 10); (2) 

DEEMING THIS CASE PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT ON PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. 14); (3) STAYING THE PARTIES’ RULE 26(f) 

CONFERENCE AND THE ISSUANCE OF A SCHEDULING ORDER PENDING 

DISPOSITION OF DEFENDANT SANDY’S TOWING SERVICE’S MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DOC. 17); (4) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE (DOC. 28); (5) PERMITTING THE FILING OF PLAINTIFF’S 

SURREPLY AND DEFENDANT’S SUR-SURREPLY (DOCS. 26, 28); AND (6) DENYING 

PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (DOC. 29) 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

This is a civil case in which pro se Plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pro se 

Plaintiff filed his original complaint in this case on January 24, 2018. Doc. 1. On April 11, 2018, 

Plaintiff moved for leave to amend his complaint. Doc. 10. While his motion for leave remained 

pending for the Court’s consideration, pro se Plaintiff filed his amended pleading. Doc. 14. 

Although the amended complaint was thus improperly filed without leave of Court first being 

granted, Defendants nevertheless filed answers directed to the amended complaint. Docs. 15, 16. 

There being no prejudice to Defendants, and in the interests of justice, pro se Plaintiff’s motion 

for leave (doc. 10) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. Accordingly, this case is now properly before 

the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s amended complaint (doc. 14). 

 Shortly after pro se Plaintiff filed his amended complaint, Defendant Sandy’s Towing 

Service (“Sandy’s”) filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings addressed to both the original
2 

and amended complaint. Doc. 17. Pro se Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to Sandy’s 

motion (doc. 21) and, subsequently, Sandy’s filed a reply memorandum (doc. 25). Pro se Plaintiff, 

without having been granted leave, improperly filed a surreply to Sandy’s reply and, as a result, 

Sandy’s moved to either strike Plaintiff’s response or, alternatively, to permit it leave to submit a 

sur-surreply. Doc. 28. In the interests of justice, the Court PERMITS pro se Plaintiff’s filing of 

a surreply (doc. 26), DENIES Sandy’s motion to strike and, instead, GRANTS Sandy’s request 

for leave to submit its sur-surreply (doc. 28) -- which the Court deems filed as of June 13, 2018. 

Sandy’s motion for judgment on the pleadings will be addressed by the undersigned in a 

separately filed Report and Recommendation. Because Sandy’s motion for judgment on the 

pleadings remains pending, the Court finds good cause exists to STAY the required Rule 26(f) 

conference between the parties and, further, to STAY issuance of a scheduling order. Such stay 

will be lifted upon final disposition of Sandy’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

Finally, pro se Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel discovery (doc. 29), which Defendants 

oppose (docs. 30, 31). Because discovery has not yet commenced in this case, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(d)(1), pro se Plaintiff’s motion to compel (doc. 29) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: July 16, 2018 s/ Michael J. Newman 

 Michael J. Newman 

 United States Magistrate Judge