Smith v. Cousins, et al.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
CHADLEN DeWAYNE SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
BLAINE COUSINS; DENISE
WOOLDRIDGE; B. HARRISON;
BRENDA KNIGHT; D.
SANICOLA; PAT KNIGHT; P.
EISMANN; C. MOROZUMI; W.
GOODE; NEIL UHRIG; REBECCA
PEREZ; P. BOWMAN; JOHN
DOES 1 through 10; and JANE
DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:22-cv-00527-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
Pending before the Court are the following motions: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to
Amend the Complaint1; (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time; and
(3) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court will address these
motions in turn.
1 Plaintiff has not yet filed a reply in support of his Motion to Amend. However, for the reasons
explained below, it is clear from the face of the Motion to Amend and from the proposed
amended complaint that the Motion must be denied. Accordingly, the Court need not wait for
Plaintiff’s reply in order to resolve the Motion to Amend.
Case 1:22-cv-00527-BLW Document 78 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 5

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
Rule 16(b) allows amendment after the deadline in the Court’s scheduling
order only if the moving party establishes “good cause.” Johnson v. Mammoth
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The good cause standard
“primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment”:
[A] district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it
cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the
party seeking the extension. Moreover, carelessness is
not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no
reason for a grant of relief. Although the existence or
degree of prejudice to the party opposing the
modification might supply additional reasons to deny a
motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving
party’s reasons for seeking modification. If that party was
not diligent, the inquiry should end.
Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The Court denied Plaintiff’s previous motion to amend because it was filed
after the deadline for amendments expired on December 11, 2024, and because
Plaintiff had not attempted to establish good cause. See Dkt. 66. The Court finds no
reason now to permit amendment, when the instant Motion to Amend was filed
even later—over a year after the deadline.
Plaintiff alleges he was diligent in amending the complaint because “the
need for amendment arose only after Plaintiff’s criminal conviction was vacated by
the Idaho Supreme Court[,] and [there is] newly discovered evidence which could
not have been known earlier despite reasonable investigation.” Dkt. 73 at 10.
Case 1:22-cv-00527-BLW Document 78 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 5

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
However, Plaintiff’s conviction was vacated on May 20, 2025. See State v. Smith,
569 P.3d 137 (Idaho 2025). Plaintiff provides no reason why the instant Motion to
Amend was filed over seven months later. See Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC, 88
F.4th 1268, 1279 (9th Cir. 2023) (holding that district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying motion to amend where plaintiffs “possessed the key
documents forming the basis of their new theory of fraud in January 2020 yet
failed to account for the five months between receiving the documents and filing
their motion to amend in June 2020”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nor does
Plaintiff identify the newly discovered evidence that supposedly exists.
Further, the Court concludes Defendants would suffer prejudice if the Court
allowed amendment at this late date. Plaintiff filed the Motion to Amend after
Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment, and granting the motion to
amend would likely require “reopening discovery so that [Defendants] could
develop [their] evidence to prepare [their] defenses.” Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co.,
232 F.3d 1271, 1295 (9th Cir. 2000) (upholding denial of motion to amend where
motion was filed with summary judgment briefing because a “‘need to reopen
discovery and therefore delay the proceedings supports a district court’s finding of
prejudice from a delayed motion to amend the complaint’”) (quoting Lockheed
Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999)).
Case 1:22-cv-00527-BLW Document 78 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 5

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
Because Plaintiff has not established diligence and because Defendants
would be prejudiced by allowing the late proposed amendment, the Motion to
Amend will be denied for lack of good cause.
The Motion to Amend will be denied for the additional reason that the
proposed amended complaint violates the 20-page limitation set forth in General
Order 342(A)(1)(a), In Re: Procedural Rules for Prisoner Civil Case Filings and
Prisoner E-Filing Program (D. Idaho Feb. 7, 2019). Plaintiff was previously
informed of this 20-page limitation yet has repeatedly disregarded it. See Dkt. 45 at
1 n.1. The Motion to Amend must be denied on this basis, as well.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time
Plaintiff seeks yet another extension of time—until January 12, 2026—to
file his response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. See Dkt. 74.
However, this deadline has already passed, and Plaintiff still has not filed his
response or requested another extension. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion will be
denied.
Plaintiff was previously warned that failure to file a timely response to
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment would result in dismissal for failure to
prosecute. See Dkt. 72. Accordingly, this case will be dismissed.
Case 1:22-cv-00527-BLW Document 78 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 5

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5
3. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
Because this case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute, Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment is moot.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (Dkt. 73) is DENIED as
untimely and as noncompliant with General Order 342(A).
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 74) is DENIED.
3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
4. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 67) is MOOT.
DATED: February 4, 2026
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge
Case 1:22-cv-00527-BLW Document 78 Filed 02/04/26 Page 5 of 5