Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lagmay v. Nobriga

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

September 20, 2018

HENRY LAGMAY, #AO191119, Plaintiff,
v.
SHELLY NOBRIGA, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDERS

          DERRICK K. WATSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the court are Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge Kenneth J. Mansfield's Orders denying Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, ECF No. 85, and vacating all hearing dates and deadlines, ECF No. 88, after this action was closed. Plaintiff gives no bases for his objections, beyond his statement that they “Precedes ‘Notice of Appeal By- Right.'” Objections, ECF No. 89. The court treats Plaintiff's Objections as an appeal from the Magistrate Judge's nondispositive Orders.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff commenced this action on July 25, 2016. See Compl., ECF No. 1.

         On September 16, 2016, the court screened Plaintiff's Complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend for its failure to state a claim. Order, ECF No. 9.

         On December 22, 2016, Plaintiff submitted the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). ECF No. 18. The court determined that the FAC stated claims against Defendants Kaipo Sarkissian and Levy Christensen only, for the use of excessive force and retaliation; all other claims against all other Defendants were dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. See February 9, 2017 Order, ECF No. 20.

         After numerous objections, peripheral motions, interlocutory appeals, and delays by Plaintiff in serving the FAC, Sarkissian and Christensen were finally served on or about September 29 and filed their Answer on November 28, 2017.

         On January 29, 2018, Magistrate Judge Mansfield issued a Rule 16 Scheduling Order, which set the deadline for motions to join parties or amend the pleadings as July 31, 2018. ECF No. 63.

         On June 1, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment for Plaintiff's alleged failure to exhaust prison administrative remedies prior to bringing suit. ECF No. 74.

         On July 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 79.

         On July 31, 2018, Defendants filed their Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition. ECF No. 80.

         On July 30, 2018, Plaintiff signed a request to file a Motion to Join Additional Parties and to Amend Pleadings; its mailing envelope shows that it was received by prison officials on July 31, 2018. See ECF Nos. 81, 81-1. The court received and docketed the Motion on August 7, 2018. Defendants opposed the Motion. ECF No. 82.

         On August 14, 2018, Magistrate Judge Mansfield denied Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file a Motion to Join Additional Parties and to Amend Pleadings. August 14, 2018 Order, ECF No. 83. Magistrate Judge Mansfield held that Plaintiff failed to show good cause or diligence for the requested extension of time and failed to explain who he sought to add as additional parties and what specific amendments to the FAC he sought. Id.

         On August 27, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a 110-page proposed amended complaint, labeled “Fed. R. Civ. P. 10. (c) Enforced Thoroughly Through-Out Above - 111 Mentioned Pages As Published.” ECF No. 84. The proposed pleading renamed all of the Defendants and realleged all of the claims that were dismissed in the February 9, 2017 Order, and, although this is not clear, named new Defendants. It ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.