Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado grants Pierce Spinelli’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The court concludes that Spinelli’s clarified allegations concerning alleged fabrication of evidence and conspiracy to fabricate evidence distinguish the case from controlling precedent and are minimally sufficient at the amendment stage. The court declines to resolve whether the conscience-shocking standard applies to the asserted Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims, reserving that issue for a later dispositive motion.
Holdings
- Leave to amend should be granted because Spinelli's revised factual allegations provide additional specificity and plausibly distinguish his claims from the allegations rejected in Warnick.
- The court declined to find the amendment futile based on the officer's report, body-camera evidence, or witness text messages because the meaning and timing of the evidence were contested and the issue was not appropriate for definitive resolution at the amendment stage.
- The court declined to deny leave based on Spinelli's delayed presentation of his argument concerning the conscience-shocking standard and exercised its discretion not to apply the law-of-the-case doctrine to prevent amendment.
Questions Presented
- Whether Spinelli should be granted leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to file a second amended complaint.
- Whether the proposed amendment would be futile because the allegations were insufficient to state fabrication-of-evidence and conspiracy-to-fabricate-evidence claims.
- Whether the court should deny leave based on undue delay or the law-of-the-case doctrine.
- Whether the conscience-shocking standard applies to Spinelli's proposed Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (9)
- Warnick v. Cooley, Warnick v. Cooley, 895 F.3d 746, 752-53 (10th Cir. 2018)(distinguished)
- Hardin v. Manitowoc-Forsythe Corp., 691 F.2d 449, 456 (10th Cir. 1982)(followed)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)(followed)
- Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Roark-Whitten Hosp. 2 LP, 2017 WL 4233017, at *3 (D.N.M. Sept. 21, 2017)(followed)
- Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. R-1 v. Moody's Investor's Servs., Inc., 175 F.3d 848, 859 (10th Cir. 1999)(followed)
- Truman v. Orem City, 1 F.4th 1227, 1236 (10th Cir. 2021)(followed)
- Brown v. City of Tulsa, 124 F.4th 1251, 1263 (10th Cir. 2025)(followed)
- Entek GRB, LLC v. Stull Ranches, LLC, 840 F.3d 1239, 1240 (10th Cir. 2016)(followed)
- U.S. v. Monsisvais, 946 F.2d 114, 117 (10th Cir. 1991)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.