Legal Opinion

Richard Cortez Bell v. K. Hakeman, et al.

District Court, D. Arizona

Decided June 12, 2026No. 2:24-cv-03377Unknown

1Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Richard Cortez Bell, No. CV-24-03377-PHX-SHD (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 K. Hakeman, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending is pro se Plaintiff Richard Cortez Bell’s third Motion for Leave to Amend 16 Complaint and Exceed Complaint Page Limit, Pursuant to Rule 15(a), Federal Rules of 17 Civil Procedure, (“Third Motion to Amend”), (Doc. 43). The Magistrate Judge issued a 18 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Third Motion to Amend be 19 denied. (Doc. 51.) Bell filed an Objection to the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
  2. Morgal v. Maricopa County Board of SupervisorsDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2012
  3. C.F. Ex Rel Farnan v. Capistrano Unified School DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
  4. Robertson v. HennochsbergDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1924
  5. Cano v. SchriroDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2006

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API