DAVIS v. MEINZER, 5:13-cv-351-DPM-JJV. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20140801701
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jul. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 31, 2014
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge. 1. Davis sued some prison officials for allegedly retaliating against him for filing a 1983 claim. NQ 4. He moves, opposed, to supplement his complaint to add some new defendants and a claim that some officials retaliated against him for filing grievances. The motion to amend, NQ 44, is denied. Dispositive motions are due in a month; the new claims are unrelated to the original claims, so more discovery would be needed and the Scheduling Order w
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge. 1. Davis sued some prison officials for allegedly retaliating against him for filing a 1983 claim. NQ 4. He moves, opposed, to supplement his complaint to add some new defendants and a claim that some officials retaliated against him for filing grievances. The motion to amend, NQ 44, is denied. Dispositive motions are due in a month; the new claims are unrelated to the original claims, so more discovery would be needed and the Scheduling Order wo..
More
ORDER
D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge.
1. Davis sued some prison officials for allegedly retaliating against him for filing a § 1983 claim. NQ 4. He moves, opposed, to supplement his complaint to add some new defendants and a claim that some officials retaliated against him for filing grievances. The motion to amend, NQ 44, is denied. Dispositive motions are due in a month; the new claims are unrelated to the original claims, so more discovery would be needed and the Scheduling Order would be derailed. There's also, as Meinzer points out, an exhaustion tangle as to the new claims.
2. Unopposed recommendation, NQ 43, adopted. FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b)(3). Motion for preliminary injunction, NQ 36, denied.
So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
