United States District Court, D. Maine
DAVID J. WIDI, JR., Plaintiff,
PAUL MCNEIL, et al., Defendants
DAVID J WIDI, JR, Plaintiff, Pro se, WAYMART, PA.
For SA STEPHEN E HICKEY, JR, SA CHRISTOPHER J DURKIN, SA DALE L ARMSTRONG, SA BRENT MCSWEYN, SA GRASSO, SA MORRIS, SA KIRK, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL TOBACCO FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, OFFICE OF INFORMATION POLICY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, Defendants: JOHN G. OSBORN, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, PORTLAND, ME.
For SA GLENN N ANDERSON, Defendant: EVAN J. ROTH, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, PORTLAND, ME; JOHN G. OSBORN, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, PORTLAND, ME.
For SA KEVIN CURRAN, DETECTIVE KEVIN CURRAN, Defendants: EDWARD R. BENJAMIN, JR., THOMPSON & BOWIE, LLP, PORTLAND, ME.
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 54(b), DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, DENYING REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE AND GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR., CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
The Court again seeks to untangle the procedural snarl created by the Plaintiff's relentless pro se filings. It dismisses his motion for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) because it is a misnamed serial motion for reconsideration and the Court's previous Order deserves finality. It denies his motion to amend the Amended Complaint as to the served Defendants, but grants his motion to reconsider its earlier Order as to the unserved Defendants and will separately complete the screening process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. It grants his motion to extend time to file a motion for reconsideration and it denies his request for a status conference.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 2, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued its mandate in accordance with its judgment of October 8, 2014. Mandate (ECF No. 266); J . (ECF No. 259). This Court turns to the motions currently pending in this case. On October 14, 2014, Mr. Widi filed a motion for enlargement of time to file a motion for reconsideration. Mot. for Enlargement of Time to File for Recons . (ECF No. 260). On October 20, 2014, Mr. Widi filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order denying his motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and requests a status conference. Mot. for Recons. of Order Denying Leave to File Second Am. Compl. and Req. for Status Conference (ECF No. 261) ( Mot. for Recons. of Order Denying Leave ). On November 10, 2014, Defendant Paul McNeil filed an opposition to Mr. Widi's motion for reconsideration of the Court's denial of Mr. Widi's motion for leave to amend the amended complaint. McNeil's Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 265).
On October 24, 2014, Mr. Widi filed a motion for relief of the Court's October 7, 2014 Order in which the Court denied multiple motions for reconsideration of its April 21, 2014 Order granting summary judgment to Defendants Denis R. Clark and Michael Lyon. Mot. for Relief Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) (ECF No. 262) ( Mot. for Relief ). On October 27, 2014, Defendants Clark and Lyon waived response to Mr. Widi's Rule 54(b) motion. Waiver of Resp. to Pl.'s Mot. for Relief Pursuant to F.R. Civ. P., Rule 54(b) (ECF No. 263). On November 6, 2014, Mr. Widi filed a reply. Reply to Defs.' Resp. to Mot. for Relief Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) (ECF No. 264).
II. THE MOTION TO EXTEND TIME
The Court grants Mr. Widi's motion to extend time within which to file his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to amend the Amended Complaint. Mr. Widi filed his motion for reconsideration on October 20, 2014, and Defendant McNeil responded on November 10, 2014. Accordingly, there is no harm in granting the motion for extension and docketing both the motion and response.
III. THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
David J. Widi, Jr. filed a complaint in this matter on June 13, 2012 against approximately thirty-nine defendants, alleging that a number of these Defendants had conspired to deprive him of his civil rights. Compl . (ECF No. 1). His case has now been pending for over two years. On July 13, 2012, the Magistrate Judge screened the Complaint and ordered Special Agent Paul McNeil, TD Banknorth, N.A. (TD Bank), Special Agent Kevin Curran, Probation Agent Denis Clark, and Probation Agent Michael Lyon to be served. Order for Serv. After Screening Compl. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (ECF No. 6).
After he filed his Complaint, Mr. Widi filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2012. Am. Compl . (ECF No. 15) ( First Am. Compl .). This Amended Complaint became the operative pleading. See Millay v. Surry Sch. Dep't, 584 F.Supp.2d 219, 226 (D. Me. 2008). On November 18, 2013, Mr. Widi filed a second amended complaint, and on November 19, 2013, the Magistrate Judge struck the Second Amended Complaint because Mr. Widi had failed to file a motion for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint. Second Am. Compl . (ECF No. 191); Order (ECF No. 192). On November 29, 2013, Mr. Widi filed a motion for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint. Mot. for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 198). On December 13, 2013, Mr. Widi filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order striking his proposed Second Amended Complaint. Mot. for Recons . (ECF No. 197). On September 23, 2014, the Court issued an order dismissing his motion for reconsideration and denying his motion to amend the Amended Complaint. Order Dismissing Pl.'s ...