Thompson v. Lengerich

• Court: District Court, D. Colorado
• Decided: March 25, 2021
• Docket: 1:18-cv-00588
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore

Civil Action No. 18-cv-00588-RM-KMT

LARRY ALLEN THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JASON LENGERICH, JENNIFER HANSEN, WILLIAM CATTELL,

Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________

This lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended/Supplemental Complaint (ECF No. 78). Defendants have filed a Notice stating they “take no position” on Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 80 at 3). A motion for leave to amend the complaint should be granted when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A plaintiff seeking to amend his complaint after a scheduling order deadline must also establish good cause for doing so. Gorsuch, Ltd., B.C. v. Wells Fargo Nat’l Bank Ass’n, 771 F.3d 1230, 1241 (10th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff proceeds pro se; thus, the Court must liberally construe his pleadings. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). But the Court does not act as his advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). On January 22, 2021, the magistrate judge issued a Recommendation (ECF No. 71) to grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 54), to deny as moot Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Judgment (ECF No. 64), and to deny Plaintiff's Motion for “Class of One” Class Action Certification (ECF No. 65). Both sides filed Objections (ECF Nos. 75, 77) to the Recommendation as well as Responses (ECF Nos. 76, 79) to those Objections. Plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 78-1) apparently targets deficiencies in the Amended Complaint identified by the magistrate judge by, among other things, providing additional allegations and adding an additional Defendant, the Colorado Department of Corrections. In light of these amendments and Defendants’ lack of opposition, the Court finds that leave to amend is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 54), Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Judgment (ECF No. 64), and Plaintiff's Motion for “Class of One” Class Action Certification (ECF No. 65). The Court REJECTS AS MOOT the Recommendation (ECF No. 71) and GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 78.) The Clerk is directed to docket Plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 78-1) as a separate entry. DATED this 25th day of March, 2021. BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge