United States District Court, D. Colorado
ESTATE OF JAMES STRONG, JR. LANHISHA RICHMOND, individually and as natural parent of minors J.S. and T.S.R., MARCUS STRONG, and HOWARD MITCHELL, JR., Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF NORTHGLENN, COLORADO, CITY OF THORNTON, COLORADO, CITY OF WESTMINSTER, COLORADO, NICHOLAS WILSON, JASON SCHLENKER, and ADAM NIELSEN, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
WILLIAM J. MARTÍNEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
civil rights action seeks to hold various police departments
in Colorado and certain of their employees accountable for
the shooting death of James Strong, Jr.
(“Strong”), who died during a search of his home
in May 2015. This matter is currently before the Court on
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended
Complaint (the “Motion”). (ECF No. 72.)
Defendants oppose the Motion. For the reasons explained
below, Plaintiffs' Motion is denied but Plaintiffs are
once again, for a final time, permitted to file a motion for
leave to file an amended complaint.
I.
BACKGROUND
The
Court incorporates by reference its discussion of the factual
background of this action in its Order Granting
Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 59). In
short, this action arises out of the fatal shooting of Strong
by the police in May 2015. (ECF No. 33 ¶¶ 5-6,
18-19.) On May 29, 2015, Strong and his common-law wife
Lanhisha Richmond (“Richmond”) were asleep in
their home in Northglenn, Colorado, along with minor children
J.S. and T.S.R., Strong's brother Marcus Strong, and
friend Howard Mitchell, Jr. (Id. ¶¶ 7-10,
18.) Police officers, including Defendants Nicholas Wilson
(“Wilson”), an officer with the Northglenn Police
Department, and Defendant Jason Schlenker
(“Schlenker”), an officer with the Thornton
Police Department, entered the home, acting on a “no
knock warrant” issued nine days earlier to lead
investigator Adam Nielsen (“Nielsen”), an
employee of Westminster. (Id. ¶¶ 15-16,
25, 31, 40.)
Strong
picked up a gun and fired two shots when an
“intruder” began to enter the bedroom.
(Id. ¶¶ 21, 25.) The person was Officer
Wilson, who fired his weapon at Strong. (Id. ¶
26.) Strong fell to the floor and fired a third shot.
(Id.) Wilson continued firing at Strong,
“through the bedroom wall as he retreated down the
hall.” (Id. ¶ 27.) Schlenker then entered
the bedroom and repeatedly shot Strong with a .233 caliber
rifle. (Id. ¶ 31.) Strong had multiple gunshot
wounds and died from the resulting injuries. (Id.
¶ 38.) Richmond, Marcus Strong, and Howard Mitchell,
Jr., the three adults in the home at the time, were
handcuffed and jailed, and the minor children placed in state
custody. (Id. ¶ 45.)
Plaintiffs
filed their Complaint on May 25, 2017 (ECF No. 1) and an
Amended Complaint on August 15, 2017 (ECF No. 33). The
Amended Complaint pled nine claims: excessive force claims
brought by the Estate of Strong (“the Estate”)
against both Wilson and Schlenker (Claims 1 & 2); a claim
by the Estate against Nielsen for Failure to Intervene (Claim
3); municipal liability claims by the Estate against the
Cities of Northglenn, Thornton, and Westminster (“the
Cities”) (Claims 4-6); and three separate claims
against Wilson and Schlenker for false arrest brought by
Richmond on behalf of herself and the minor children (Claim
7), by Marcus Strong (Claim 8), and by Howard Mitchell, Jr.
(Claim 9).
In
August 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss Claim 3 against
Nielsen and Claims 4-6 against the Cities. (ECF No. 35.) On
April 5, 2018, the Court granted Defendant's motion, and
dismissed Claim 3 with prejudice and Claims 4-6 without
prejudice (“the Order”). (ECF No. 59 at 18-19.)
The Court also granted Plaintiffs leave to file a second
amended complaint “no later than May 31,
2018 (i.e., simultaneously with the
discovery cutoff deadline, as currently extended
(see ECF No. 52)).” (Id. at 19.)
On May
31, 2018, Defendants filed an unopposed Motion for Extension
of Time to Complete Discovery for the purpose of taking four
additional depositions. (ECF No. 70.) On June 1, 2018, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty granted Defendant's
motion and modified, among other deadlines, the discovery
cut-off in the Scheduling Order to June 29, 2018. (ECF No.
73.) On that same day, Plaintiffs filed the present Motion
seeking leave to amend their complaint. (ECF No. 72.)
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Timeliness of Motion for Leave to Amend
1.
Standards under Rule 15(a) and Rule 16(b)
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) states that leave to amend a
complaint “shall be granted freely when justice so
requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). “Refusing leave to
amend is generally only justified upon a showing of undue
delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or
dilatory move, failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, or futility of amendment.”
Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th
Cir. 1993).
Under
Rule 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be modified “only
for good cause and with the judge's consent.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). Thus, where a motion for leave to
amend is filed after the court-ordered deadline, the court
engages in a two-step analysis: (1) does the motion meet the
requirements of Rule 16(b); and if so, (2) does the motion
...