Opinion
1:19-cv-01591-NONE-EPG (PC)
06-29-2021
CORNEL JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. JASON QUICK, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION IN LIMINE, AND MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF NOS. 78, 81)
Cornel Jackson (“Plaintiff”) is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion in limine and a motion to amend his complaint. (ECF Nos. 78, 81). For the reasons given, the Court denies both motions without prejudice.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine
Plaintiff's motion in limine seeks to exclude defendants from bringing up “Plaintiff['s] pending criminal case or charges at any time before or during trial to jury.” (ECF No. 78). Plaintiff argues that such testimony or evidence would unfairly prejudice him.
Plaintiff's motion is premature. The Court has recently opened discovery and set a schedule in this case. Currently, there are no pre-trial or trial dates set pursuant to the scheduling order. (ECF No. 76, p. 6 (“If this case is still proceeding after dispositive motions have been resolved, or if no dispositive motions are filed, the Court will set expert disclosure deadlines, a telephonic trial confirmation hearing, pretrial deadlines, and a trial date.”)). The Court notes that, if this case proceeds to trial, prior to trial, Defendants will be required to file a pretrial statement. Pursuant to Local Rule 281(b), this statement is required to include a list of all prospective witnesses, as well as a list of all documents and exhibits that Defendants intend to offer at trial. As Defendants have not yet filed their pretrial statement indicating the witnesses and exhibits they intend to use at trial, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion in limine, without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling the motion after Defendants file their pretrial statement, or some other time as set by the district judge in connection with setting the trial in this case.
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint
Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint to add new defendants. (ECF No. 81). He states that documents obtained in the course of litigation, statements at a settlement conference, and physical evidence in his possession lead him to believe that Officers Benjamin Mendoza and Garza have violated his legal rights.
Plaintiff may not amend his complaint in this manner. If Plaintiff wants to amend his complaint, in addition to filing a motion for leave to amend, he needs to file a copy of the proposed amended complaint that is complete in itself. Local Rule 220 (“Unless prior approval to the contrary is obtained from the Court, every pleading to which an amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by court order shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading. No pleading shall be deemed amended or supplemented until this Rule has been complied with.”).
Therefore, Plaintiff's motion will be denied, without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling the motion with a signed copy of the proposed amended complaint, which is complete in itself, attached.
The Court notes that if Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is granted, Plaintiff's amended complaint will need to be screened, any new defendants will need to be served, and the new defendants will be allowed to take discovery. Thus, there would be a significant delay in this case that has been litigated since November 2019.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiffs motion in limine (ECF No. 78) is denied without prejudice.
2. Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 81) is denied, without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling the motion with a signed copy of the proposed amended complaint (that is complete in itself) attached.
IT IS SO ORDERED.