Walls v. City of Detroit, 17-cv-10660. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20180427f52
Visitors: 16
Filed: Apr. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (ECF #22) AND (2) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . In this action, Plaintiff Dalvin Walls alleges that the City of Detroit and certain law enforcement officers violated his civil rights when he was taken into custody after witnessing a murder at a Detroit convenience store. On March 29, 2018, Walls filed a motion to amend his Complaint. ( See ECF #22.) According to Walls, he receiv
Summary: ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (ECF #22) AND (2) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . In this action, Plaintiff Dalvin Walls alleges that the City of Detroit and certain law enforcement officers violated his civil rights when he was taken into custody after witnessing a murder at a Detroit convenience store. On March 29, 2018, Walls filed a motion to amend his Complaint. ( See ECF #22.) According to Walls, he receive..
More
ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (ECF #22) AND (2) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, District Judge.
In this action, Plaintiff Dalvin Walls alleges that the City of Detroit and certain law enforcement officers violated his civil rights when he was taken into custody after witnessing a murder at a Detroit convenience store.
On March 29, 2018, Walls filed a motion to amend his Complaint. (See ECF #22.) According to Walls, he received documents during discovery that "indicated that D/Sgt. Bryan Buchan, Det. Moises Jimenez, and D/Tpr. Phillip Duplessis were all involved in his arrest, detention, search and seizure." (Id. at Pg. ID 122.) Walls now seeks to amend his Complaint to add these individuals as Defendants. Defendants have not filed a response to Walls' motion.
The Court has reviewed Walls' motion and concludes that granting leave to amend is appropriate in this case. Accordingly, Walls' motion is GRANTED. Walls shall file the First Amended Complaint attached to his motion with the Court within 14-days of this order. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint within the time required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
