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 

Jhon Nigel Brisken, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Juan Vasquez, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00241-PHX-JJT (ESW)

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff’s untimely Motion for Leave to File an 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 27) filed May 28, 2019. 

On January 22, 2018, Plaintiff Jhon Nigel Brisken, who is confined in CoreCivic’s 

Saguaro Correctional Center in Eloy, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). The Court screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and ordered Defendant Allen to answer Count One (Doc. 8 at 12). 

Defendant Allen has not been served, though a service packet was forwarded by the Clerk 

of Court on January 2, 2019 to the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) for service 

of process. The Court will order the Clerk of Court to contact USMS regarding the status 

of service of process on Defendant Allen. 

 On July 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Leave to File an [sic] Amended 

Complaint” (Doc. 11), which the Court denied for failure to comply with LRCiv 15.1 (Doc. 

14). The Court ordered that Plaintiff re-file his Motion and a rule compliant proposed First 
- 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 

Amended Complaint no later than September 7, 2018 (Id. at 2). On September 24, 2018, 

the Court struck Plaintiff’s second proposed First Amended Complaint for failure to 

comply with LRCiv 15.1. (Doc. 18). The Court granted Plaintiff’s request for a thirtyday extension within which to refile a third proposed First Amended Complaint that 

complied with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.). 

On October 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Plaintiff Files a Motion 

to be Explained what was Wrong with the 1st Amended Complaint that was Attached with 

the 30 Day Extention of Time” (Doc. 19). The Court granted in part Plaintiff’s Motion 

(Doc. 19) by sending the Plaintiff another prisoner civil rights complaint form (Doc. 26 at 

3). 

On October 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed a third “Motion for Leave to File an [sic] First 

Amended Complaint” (Doc. 20), which the Court denied pursuant to LRCiv 15.1 (Doc. 26 

at 4). However, the Court again extended the time for Plaintiff to file a rule compliant 

motion to amend his Complaint and lodge a fourth proposed First Amended Complaint to 

January 25, 2019 (Doc. 26 at 3). 

On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed his untimely fourth Motion for Leave to File an 

Amended Complaint and fourth proposed First Amended Complaint (Docs. 27, 28). 

Plaintiff’s motion is not compliant with LRCiv 15.1. Nor has Plaintiff provided any 

explanation for the untimely filing of his motion. 

For the reasons set forth herein, 

IT IS ORDERED striking1

 Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended 

Complaint and lodged proposed First Amended Complaint (Docs. 27, 28). 

 1 U.S. Dominator, Inc., 768 F.2d at 1102 n.1 (“Contrary to the defendants’ assertions, Dominator’s motion for leave to amend its complaint was properly treated as a nondispositive motion.”); Seto v. Thielen, 519 F. App’x 966, 969 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A 

motion for leave to amend is a nondispositive motion which a magistrate judge may properly 

decide.”); Wingerter v. Chester Quarry Co., 185 F.3d 657, 660 (7th Cir. 1998) (“The 

magistrate judge was authorized to rule on the motion for leave to file the Third Amended 

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), which provides that the district court may 

designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine . . .any nondispositive pretrial matter.”); Morgal v. Maricopa County Bd. of Sup’rs, 284 F.R.D. 452, 458 (D. Ariz. 2012) 

(“Generally, a motion for leave to amend the pleadings is a nondispositive matter that may be ruled on by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).”) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted).
- 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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court contact USMS to inquire as 

to the status of service of process on Defendant Allen and provide the status in a docket 

text entry for the Court’s review. 

Dated this 11th day of June, 2019.