Opinion
CV-23-00477-PHX-MTL (CDB)
09-11-2023
Darius Johnson Bey, Plaintiff, v. State of Arizona, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
MICHAEL T. LIBURDI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff previously amended his complaint. He attempted to amend again but that was stricken from the record because he did not seek leave of court, nor did he follow the requirements of LRCiv 15.1(a). On June 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed two separate docket items. The first, at Docket No. 21, is denominated as an Amended Complaint. The second item, at Docket No. 22, is a motion for leave to amend the complaint.
Defendants oppose the motion for leave to amend.
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation to this Court recommending that Plaintiff should be denied leave to amend. (Doc. 29.) Plaintiff filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation and Defendants responded. (Docs. 30, 31.)
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's Objection thereto, the Defendants' Response brief, and other docket filings. The Court finds the Magistrate Judge's reasoning well taken. That is, the proposed amended complaint does not add any new factual allegations that would obviate the pending motions to dismiss. Much of the proposed amended complaint recites sovereign-citizen arguments that lack merit and have been discredited by courts. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29) is ACCEPTED, and the objections (Doc. 30) are OVERRULED;
2. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Doc. 22) is DENIED;
3, The Clerk of Court shall STRIKE the proposed amended complaint (Doc. 21) from the docket.