Opinion
08-23-2013
JOSEPH A. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ADD
INFORMATION TO PLAINTIFF'S
PRIOR MOTIONS
(Doc. 26.)
I. BACKGROUND
Joseph A. Brown ("Plaintiff") is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on February 6, 2012. (Doc. 1.) On April 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 7.) On February 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 21.)
On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Injunctive Relief and a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. (Docs. 22, 23.) On August 19, 2013, the court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint, allowing Plaintiff thirty days in which to file a Third Amended Complaint. (Doc. 24.)
On August 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to allow him to add information to his motions of August 9, 2013. (Doc. 26.)
II. LOCAL RULE 220
Local Rule 220 provides, in part:
Unless prior approval to the contrary is obtained from the Court, every pleading to which an amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by court order shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading. No pleading shall be deemed amended or supplemented until this Rule has been complied with. All changed pleadings shall contain copies of all exhibits referred to in the changed pleading.
Plaintiff has submitted information, requesting the court to allow him to make additions to prior motions he filed on August 9, 2013. However, under Rule 220, Plaintiff may not amend pleadings by adding information piecemeal after the pleadings have been filed. To add information or correct an error in a previously-filed motion, Plaintiff must file a new, amended motion which is complete within itself. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to add information to his prior motions shall be denied.
Further, Plaintiff is reminded that his Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint, filed on August 9, 2013, was already granted on August 19, 2013. (Doc. 24.) Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, any request to add information to the August 9, 2013 Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint is moot.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to add information to his prior motions is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE