Holmseth v. City of East Grand Forks et al
Request to Amend Complaint download
May 1, 2015
by Timothy Charles Holmseth
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
TIMOTHY CHARLES HOLMSETH Plaintiff, v. CITY OF EAST GRAND FORKS, a municipal entity in the state of Minnesota; RONALD GALSTAD, city attorney for City of East Grand Forks, in his official and individual capacity; BARB ERDMAN, Sheriff of Polk County, Minnesota, in her official and individual capacity; JAMES RICHTER, director of Economic Development and Housing Authority (retired), in his official and individual capacity; MICHAEL HEDLUND, chief of police for City of East Grand Forks, in his official and individual capacity; DAVID MURPHY, administrator for the City of East Grand Forks, in his official and individual capacity; RODNEY HAJICEK, lieutenant detective at East Grand Forks Police Department, in his official and individual capacity; AEISSO SCHRAGE, police officer at East Grand Forks Police Department, in his official and individual capacity; MICHAEL LACOURSIERE, public defender for MINNESOTA PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, in his official and individual capacity; JOHN DOE, in his/her official and individual capacity; JEANETTE RINGUETTE, administrative assistant at the Grand Forks National Weather Service Office, in her official and individual capacity; MICHAEL NORLAND, deputy at the Polk County Sheriff’s Office, in his official and individual capacity; Defendants. |
CIVIL ACTION NO: 14-CV-2970
Deprivation of Rights CIVIL RIGHTS
REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED MOTION AND/OR SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION |
MEMORANDUM
On March 9, 2015, the Magistrate issued a REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION to Honorable Donovan Frank.
Upon receipt of the REPORT, Plaintiff began to review the REPORT, and then formulate an OBJECTION in response to be submitted to Honorable Frank.
Plaintiff’s RESPONSE is still being prepared and will be mailed Saturday, March 21, 2015, to reach the federal courthouse by the deadline of March 23, 2015.
Plaintiff’s FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, and oral testimony and argument before the Court, alleged Defendant City, as well as individual officers and public officials named as defendants in their individual capacity, were engaging in a pattern and practice of corruption that violated federal law and resulted in the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Plaintiff alleged that the pattern and practice of corruption was so deeply engrained that it had become accepted as an un-written policy. Plaintiff alleged it was within this accepted culture that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated.
Plaintiff now request the Court allow the following be considered, as the following was not available to Plaintiff at the time of the filing of the original complaint.
THE COURT SHOULD GRANT PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff has not had ample opportunity to further investigate the full body of information received by Mr. REDACTED.
The alleged facts set forth by Mr. REDACTED began to occur long before Plaintiff ever came into the jurisdiction or contact with the defendants.
The alleged facts set forth by Mr. REDACTED constitute prima facie evidence that Plaintiff’s allegations regarding corruption as an established custom or policy was entirely accurate.
Plaintiff requests the Court’s permission to file an Amended Complaint and/or Supplemental Complaint, pursuant to Rule 15.
Respectfully submitted,
Timothy Charles Holmseth
Pro Se