A sheriff was sued for violation of the civil rights of the owner an outdoor stage, with the plaintiff alleging that he was compelled to hire sheriff's deputies for his private security guards under the threat of otherwise facing the closure of the road leading to his property. The lawsuit was properly dismissed after the plaintiff's lawyer failed to file a complaint that could be understood, despite being allowed three attempts. The lawyer was also ordered to show cause as to why he should not be disciplined for filing incomprehensible documents that failed to provide adequate notice of the basis of his client's claims, including an incomprehensible appeal brief, raising a question of whether he was competent to practice law. The court noted that one sentence in the complaint contained 345 words, with 23 sentences containing 100 words or more. Stanard v. Nygren, #09-1487, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 19213 (7th Cir.).
    In an arrestee's lawsuit claiming that officers used excessive force and illegally arrested him, he was denied leave to amend the complaint to name two previously unknown officers as defendants. He failed to show good cause for amendment, based on the city's argument that he did not act diligently in trying to discover the officers' identities. Additionally, the serious illness of his lawyer did not justify the delay in discovery of the officers' names, when the lawyer made a decision not to seek further time to do so on the basis of his illness, although he did ask for such extra time in other cases. Fanucchi v. Garrett, No. CIV. S-07-608, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 76966 (E.D. Cal.).
     Arrestee who failed to assert federal civil rights claim in initial complaint or in response to motion for summary judgment, and who did not submit a proposed amended complaint in the form required by the federal rules of civil procedure could not pursue a federal Fourth Amendment claim. Spadafore v. Gardner, No. 01-2087, 330 F.3d 849 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Arrestee pursuing federal civil rights claim against town and police officer arising out of his arrest and conviction for violation of a town ordinance could not seek, in the same proceeding, administrative review of his conviction, since state law requires filing for such review within 35 days. Doctrine in federal court that an amended complaint "relates back" to the date of the original filing date of the complaint could not be used to circumvent this time limit, and therefore state law claims in the lawsuit, which depended on the arrestee successfully challenging his conviction of the town ordinance, should be dismissed. Almanza v. Town of Cicero, 244 F. Supp. 2d 913 (N.D. Ill. 2003). [N/R]
     Arrestees were entitled to amend their complaint against deputy sheriff, prosecutor and other defendants claiming false arrest, malicious prosecution, conviction and imprisonment for sexual abuse of a child in case where child later recanted his testimony. Initial complaint did not contain enough specific facts for court to determine whether absolute or qualified immunity applied to the defendants' alleged conduct. Broam v. Bogan, No. 01-17246, 320 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Plaintiff could, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, amend his complaint, seven years after it had been filed, to add three officers as defendants, when the original complaint mentioned all three of them as having been involved in the alleged use of excessive force against him, but he could not amend it to now name as a defendant an officer who was named only as a witness in the original complaint, since he was not on notice that he could be named as a defendant. Mosley v. Jablonsky, 209 F.R.D. 48 (E.D.N.Y. 2002).[N/R]
     Plaintiff who filed suit against deputy only in his official capacity was not entitled to amend complaint to sue deputy in his individual capacity when amendment was filed more than 120 days after the original suit was filed; plaintiff's original complaint did not involve a "mistake" in identity, but rather a conscious choice as to what claims to pursue Lovelace v. O'Hara, 985 F.2d 847 (6th Cir. 1993).