Opinion
Case No. 05-3261-CM-DJW.
June 6, 2007
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's second Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (doc. 64). Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his Amended Petition (doc. 7) filed on June 23, 2006 to remove several sections of that pleading. As explained below, the motion is denied.
I. Procedural Posture
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his original Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (doc. 1) against Defendants Jay Shelton, Dr. Behar, and Sue Newland. A year later, on June 23, 2006, Plaintiff sought leave to file his Amended Petition, which he then filed (doc. 7). In addition to Defendant Shelton, who was named in the original Complaint, the Amended Petition added the following defendants: Roger Werholtz, Ray Roberts, Correct Care Solutions, Dr. Jones, and John Doe defendants. Defendant Correct Care Solutions filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint on November 2, 2006 (doc. 32). Defendants Ray Roberts, Roger Werholtz, and Jay Shelton filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint on January 26, 2007 and a Motion for Summary Judgment on January 31, 2007 (docs. 45-46). Plaintiff was granted until April 20, 2007 in which to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment. On May 4, 2007, District Judge Murguia issued a Show Cause Order (doc. 61) directing Plaintiff to show cause why Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment should not be granted and directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendant's motion by May 14, 2007. The Scheduling Order dated April 2, 2007 (doc. 52) set a May 15, 2007 deadline for all motions to join parties or otherwise amend the complaint. On May 15, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Response as to the Motion for Summary Judgment, as well as the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (docs. 63-64) currently pending before the Court. No party has filed any opposition to this Motion to Amend within the time permitted by D. Kan. R. 6.1(d)(a).
II. Standard for Ruling on Motions to Amend
III. Discussion
15 42 U.S.C. § 198342 U.S.C. § 1983
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a).
Castleglen, Inc. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 984 F.2d 1571, 1585 (10th Cir. 1993) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
Woolsey v. Marion Labs., Inc., 934 F.2d 1452, 1462 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted).
See D. Kan. Rule 15.1 ("a motion to amend . . . shall set forth a concise statement of the amendment . . . with the proposed pleading attached.").
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (doc. 64) is denied without prejudice.
Copies of this Order shall be mailed to all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties, who do not receive e-mail notification.
IT IS SO ORDERED.