Campbell v. Oklahoma County Detention Center et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MICHAEL A. CAMPBELL, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. CIV-22-399-R
)
WILLIAM MONDAY, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
The Court addresses two Motions with this Order: Plaintiff’s Motion to Mitigate
Damages [Doc. 101] and Defendants’ Motion to Quash [Doc. 103]. Parties have responded
to each Motion [Docs. 108, 111]. The Court DENIES both Motions for the reasons set forth
below.
The Court, like Defendants, construes Plaintiff’s pro se Motion to Mitigate
Damages as an attempt to amend his Complaint to specify damages he wishes to receive.1
Because more than twenty-one days have passed since the Complaint was filed, Plaintiff
may only amend it “with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave” F ED. R.
C IV. P. 15(a)(2) “[A] request for leave to amend must give adequate notice to the district
court and to the opposing party of the basis of the proposed amendment before the court is
required to recognize that a motion for leave to amend is before it.” Calderon v. Kansas
1 Because Plaintiff filed this motion as a pro se litigant, the Court affords his materials a liberal
construction, but it does not act as his advocate. See United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975
(10th Cir. 2009).
Case 5:22-cv-00399-R Document 112 Filed 06/25/24 Page 1 of 2

2
Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 181 F.3d 1180. 1186-87 (10th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff Campbell
has provided no information as to why this proposed amendment is necessary or how it
furthers the interest of justice. Thus, there is no justification for allowing the amendment.
Plaintiff’s pro se Motion to Mitigate Damages [Doc. 101] is DENIED.
Next, Defendants Williams and Monday move to quash Plaintiff’s attempt at service
of process. Plaintiff Campbell has now unsuccessfully attempted to serve these Defendants
multiple times pursuant to FED. R. C IV. P. 4. However, Plaintiff is now represented by
Counsel, who has moved the Court extend the deadline to properly serve Defendants under
LCvR 7.1(h). Doc. 111. Plaintiff, through Counsel, suggests there is good cause to extend
the deadline because Counsel is newly familiarized with the case, and the extension is in
the interest of judicial economy. Id. The Court agrees. Plaintiff is directed to effect proper
service on Defendants Williams and Monday by July 26, 2024. Defendants’ Motion to
Quash [Doc. 103] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of June.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:22-cv-00399-R Document 112 Filed 06/25/24 Page 2 of 2