IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

JOHN S. LA TOUR,
         Plaintiff,

              v. 

CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS              File Number:  02-5001

         Defendant

MOTION REQUESTING LEAVE OF THE COURT TO AMEND COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff in the above captioned case comes now for the purpose of filing my Motion Requesting Leave of the Court to Amend my Complaint, states as follows, to-wit:

            1. I come to the Court under the authority of Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the express purpose of amending my complaint.

            2. This request is made in the furtherance of justice and fairness and the protection and restoration of significant constitutional rights.

            3. In my most recently approved amended complaint, filed on September 30, 2002, I argued that the Fayetteville sign ordinance was overbroad in that it regulated signs based on their content; it regulated noncommercial political signs to a greater extent than commercial signs; and that it produced an illegal prior restraint by vesting unbridled discretion in the hands of local functionaries. However, in that amended complaint I failed to use either of the terms "overbroad" or "overbreadth".

         
             4. Even though I thoroughly described almost the exact overbreadth ills the United States Supreme Court was attempting to guard against in Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973), I failed to include the name of these ills: overbreadth or overbroad.

            5. In this amendment I am asking this Court to allow me to add the following three words to my complaint: "overly broad and". These three words will be added to paragraph 40 in the old numbering! system and paragraph 22 in the new numbering system. The old paragraph reads:

40.

Even a casual reading of the ordinance reveals that

it suffers from both of these ills in that it regulates on the basis of content and it is an illegal prior restraint because it places unbridled discretion in the hands of local officials.

The revised paragraph will read: 22.

Even a casual reading of the ordinance reveals that

it suffers from both of these ills in that it regulates on the basis of content and it is overly broad and an illegal prior restraint because it places unbridled discretion in the hands of local officials.

            6. This amendment is merely a technical adjustment and, if granted leave, it will not prejudice any party to this lawsuit. The City has been on notice that I have been challenging the ordinance on its face since September 24, 2002, the day I filed my second Motion to Amend. As of this writing, the City has enjoyed no less than five months to prepare its defenses. Moreover, the addition of these three words will not add to the substance of my arguments but merely inserts a term for technical correctness.

            7. In passing, I note that this Court granted the City's request to take a deposition well after the deadline agreed to in our Rule 26f Report. This is so even though its request was made after the established deadline.