In spite of Shipley's failure to file a proper motion to amend his complaint in a timely manner, the Court did consider the initial complaint when considering Whalen's "Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings".
The way I read it, the "technicality" prevented Shipley from amending his complaint but did not keep the Court from considering the initial complaint in deciding how to act on Whalen's motion.
This statement is a common theme throughout the document which leads me to conclude that Shipley did a poor job of presenting his case and that one could conclude that Shipley had no case from the very beginning:
"Shipley also does not allege any facts that allow the Court to reasonably infer..."
More telling statements about the quality of Shipley's initial complaint:
* "But Shipley cites no relevant authority in any of these filings and does not otherwise substantively address Whelan's argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity."
* "The Court concludes that even if Whelan testified against Shipley
at a bench trial as stated in allegation (2) above, that action would be protected by absolute immunity."
* "The Court also concludes that fact allegations (3) and (4) listed above do not state cognizable claims against Whelan. Allegations that Whelan had discussions with Shipley on the street and with BNSF are insufficient to state a facially plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. Thus, factual allegations (2), (3), and (4) do not present cognizable claims and do not meet the Iqbal standard sufficient to survive judgment on the pleadings."
* "Shipley's complaint must contain sufficient factual matter that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that Whelan prosecuted Shipley with malice, without probable cause, and for the purpose of denying Shipley equal protection or another specific constitutional 10 right. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Lacey, 649 F.3d at 1133. The Court concludes that it does not."
* "Fact allegations that Whelan "ordered," "coached," or "conspired" are not sufficient to allow the Court to reasonably infer that Whelan prosecuted Shipley without probable cause."
* "Shipley has also failed to allege facts that allow the Court to infer that Whelan prosecuted Shipley for the purpose of depriving him of a constitutional right. Lacey, 649 F.3d at 1133. Shipley does not allege any facts that indicate he was arrested or detained, or that allow the Court to reasonably infer that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated."
* "Shipley summarily states that Whelan did "deny me of my
constitutional guarantees of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness," but makes no fact allegations that support this conclusion."
* "The Court is not bound to accept such "legal conclusions" or "mere conclusory statements." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. Instead, the Complaint must have sufficient fact allegations to allow the Court to reasonably infer that Whelan prosecuted Shipley with malice and for the purpose of depriving him of a specific constitutional right. No such fact allegations appear in Shipley's complaint. Shipley does not specifically refer to any information that Whelan knowingly and falsely submitted to prosecutors. Absent such allegations, his claims fail."
And it goes on and on about Shipley's failure to provide sufficient facts to make his case.