United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is pro se plaintiff Michael
Rowe's (“plaintiff”) renewed motion for leave
to amend his first amended complaint. (ECF No. 113).
Defendant Clark County Education Association
(“CCEA”) filed a response (ECF No. 114), as did
defendant Clark County School District (“CCSD”)
(ECF No. 115). Plaintiff did not file corresponding replies.
before the court are the motions for summary judgment,
submitted by CCSD, CCSDPD, and CCEA. (ECF Nos. 76, 77).
Plaintiff filed responses to those motions (ECF Nos. 81, 92),
and defendants filed replies (ECF Nos. 85, 95).
April 28, 2017, the court denied plaintiff's
countermotion to amend his first amended
complaint. See (ECF No. 110).
same order, the court granted CCEA's motion to dismiss,
granted in part and denied in part CCSD and CCSDPD's
motion to dismiss, and dismissed CCSDPD from the case.
See (id.). In addition, the court gave
plaintiff thirty (30) days from the date of the order to file
a renewed motion to amend his complaint if he wished.
on May 26, 2017, plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking
leave to amend his first amended complaint and filed his
proposed second amended complaint (“proposed amended
complaint”) adding various defendants and
claims. (ECF No. 113).
plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, plaintiff seeks
to add five (5) new defendants and exclude Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department and CCSDPD, in accordance with
the court's previous orders (ECF Nos. 60, 63, 110). (ECF
No. 113). The five proposed additional defendants are: Nevada
State Education Association (“NSEA”), Dyer and
Lawrence Law Firm, The Law Office of Alexis Brown Law, Esq.,
The Law Office of Robert Spretnak, Esq., and The Law Office
of Daniel Marks, Adam Levine, Esq. (ECF No. 113-1).
plaintiff alleges the following fifteen (15) causes of action
in his proposed amended complaint: (1) intentional tort
against all defendants; (2) a claim under 18 U.S.C. §
241 against all defendants; (3) a claim under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1964 against all defendants; (4) breach of contract by
wrongful termination against CCSD; (5) negligence against
CCEA, CCSD, Dyer and Lawrence Law Firm, and NSEA; (6) breach
of contract against CCEA and NSEA; (7) unlawful
dissemination/obtention/use of records of criminal history
against Robert Spretnak, CCEA, CCSD, and Dyer and Lawrence
Law Firm; (8) a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
violation of plaintiff's Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendment rights under the United States and Nevada
Constitutions against Dyer and Lawrence Law Firm, CCEA, NSEA,
and CCSD; (9) deprivation of his rights under the color of
law against all defendants; (10) obstruction of justice
against all defendants; (11) legal misconduct against Adam
Levine, Robert Spretnak, Alexis Brown, Dyer and Lawrence Law
Firm, CCEA, and CCSD; (12) conflict of interest against all
defendants; (13) infliction of emotional distress against all
defendants; (14) punitive damages against all defendants; and
(15) gross negligence against all defendants. (ECF No. 113-1 at
on June 19, 2017, plaintiff filed another motion seeking
leave to amend his first amended complaint. (ECF No. 117).
However, plaintiff's most recent motion for leave to
amend (ECF No. 117) does not comply with the court's
previous order. See (ECF No. 110 at 10).
Additionally, plaintiff's new motion lacks a satisfactory
explanation for the delay in filing the new motion for leave
light of the foregoing, plaintiff's most recent motion
for leave to amend (ECF No. 117) will be stricken. See
Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404
(9th Cir. 2010) (holding that “courts have inherent
power to control their dockets[, which] includes the power to
strike items from the docket.”).
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend
“shall be freely given when justice so requires.”
Moreover, “[a] district court determines the propriety
of a motion to amend by ascertaining the presence of any of
four factors: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the
opposing party, and/or futility.” Griggs v. Pace
Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999).
Indeed, “this determination should be performed with
all inferences in favor of granting the motion.”
Id. The Supreme Court has interpreted rule 15(a) and
confirmed the liberal standard district courts must apply
when granting such leave. In Foman v. Davis, 371
U.S. 178 (1962), the Court explained:
absence of any apparent or declared reason-such as undue
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the
movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by
virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the
amendment, etc.-the leave sought should, as the rules
require, be “freely given.” Id. at 182.
“[a]s [the Ninth C]ircuit and others have held, it is
the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that
carries the greatest weight. Prejudice is the touchstone of
the inquiry under rule 15(a).” Eminence Capital,
LLC v. Aspeon, ...