.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
MARTIN LINDSTEDT, )
Plaintiff, )
V. ) NO 96-4262-CV-C-9
MISSOURI LIBERTARIAN PARTY, )
et al., )
Defendants. )
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART "PLAIN-
TIFF'S JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS TO
SUIT & AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS"
I. BACKGROUND
On September 9, 1996, plaintiff Martin Lindstedt submitted
an unverified Civil Complaint naming as defendants the Missouri
Libertarian Party; Secretary of State, Rebecca M. Cook; and the
State of Missouri. On January 14, 1997, Lindstedt filed a
verified Civil Complaint (Complaint).
On February 28, 1997, I issued a Scheduling Order which set
March 14, 1997, as the deadline to join additional parties and
April 30, 1997, as the deadline for filing motions to amend the
pleadings.
On March 18, 1997, Lindstedt filed "Plaintiff's Joinder of
Additional Parties to Suit & Amendment of Pleadings". I will
treat Lindstedt's pleading as a motion for leave to join
additional parties and a motion for leave to amend the Complaint.
Specifically, Lindstedt seeks to add approximately 22 named
defendants and up to sixteen "Unknown John/Jane Doe
'Libertarians"'. Additionally, Lindstedt seeks to assert
additional claims against the Missouri Libertarian Party.
Document # 30
II. DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff's motion to join parties.
In his motion, plaintiff seeks to join a total of approxi-
mately 38 defendants. However, plaintiff's motion was filed
after the deadline for joining parties set in my Scheduling Order
dated February 28, 1997, had expired. Lindstedt has not provided
any reason for his failure to seek leave to join timely these
named and anonymous defendants. Furthermore, Lindstedt did not
seek leave to extend the deadline set in the Scheduling Order and
has not shown good cause for an extension. Therefore,
Lindstedt's untimely motion for leave to join additional parties
will be denied.
B. Plaintiff's motion to amend the Complaint.
In his motion, Lindstedt seeks to add claims against the
Missouri Libertarian Party, a party to his January 14, 1997,
Complaint. Lindstedt does not seek to add claims against other
defendants that were named in his Complaint.
The Missouri Libertarian Party filed no opposition to
Lindstedt's motion.
Lindstedt's motion to amend the claims against the Missouri
Libertarian Party is timely under the Scheduling Order. Because
the motion to amend was filed within the time set by the
Scheduling Order and because the Missouri Libertarian Party filed
no objection to Lindstedt's request, plaintiff's motion for leave
to amend his Complaint to add claims against the Missouri
Libertarian Party will be granted. Therefore, the claims
asserted against the Missouri Libertarian Party in the
2
Complaint will be amended as requested by plaintiff. The claims
asserted against the other defendants remain as alleged in the
January 14, 1997, Complaint.
Lindstedt also seeks leave to amend his Complaint to state
claims against the approximately 38 defendants that plaintiff
seeks to join by the pleading under consideration. However,
because plaintiff's motion to join these defendants is denied by
this order, his motion to amend the Complaint to add claims
against those defendants will be denied as moot.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly it is ORDERED that:
1) "Plaintiff's Joinder of Additional Parties to Suit &
Amendment of Pleadings" is granted in part and denied in part;
2) plaintiff's untimely motion to join additional defendants
is denied;
3) plaintiff's motion to amend his Complaint to add claims
against the Missouri Libertarian Party is granted;
4) plaintiff's motion to amend his Complaint to add claims
against defendants not named in the January 14, 1997, Complaint
is denied as moot; and
5) except as the claims against the defendant Missouri
Libertarian Party are concerned, the claims against the other
3
defendants remain as asserted in Lindstedt's Complaint dated
January 14, 1997.
-s-
______________________________
D. BROOK BARTLETT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Kansas City, Missouri
April _18_ 1997.
4
.
Comments: Obviously Judge Bartlett was concerned that a trial with "38 defendants" would turn into a circus. So he took the easy way out and denied most of my suits against the criminal Anarchy-Fascists. Give a man a hammer and pretty soon about everything looks like a nail. Make a man a judge, and pretty soon the way to solve a problem is to simply make a judicial order.
However, Judge Bartlett's order was unlawful. It violates 6 or 7 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Also, to insist that a paper isn't filed until the clerk files it puts far too much responsibility upon a mere clerk, plus it invites misconduct. It makes it too easy for someone to "lose" the file, then claim it wasn't timely filed, case dismissed.
So Judge Bartlett's decision invited a response. This response had to be filed on or within 10 days in order to take advantage of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 safeguards.
However, due to Lawyer Moore's incompetence, he failed to file an answer so the NSDAMoLP-PP is firmly on the hook. This order probably came down as manna from heaven. Now watch me snatch the unmerited judicial pelf away. .
Back to Lindstedt v. the MoLP-PP, the Federal Lawsuit or
Patrick Henry On-Line
.