Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03252-CMA-KLM
10-18-2012
JOHN LOUIS ATKINS, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, T. WARD, Corrections Officer/Agent, M. ARVIZA, Supervisor of Education/Agent, and RENE G. GARCIA, Warden, FCI Englewood, Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint [Docket No. 54; Filed September 19, 2012] (the "Motion"). Defendants have filed a Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend [#57; Filed September 26, 2012] (the "Response"). Plaintiff has not filed a reply and the time to do so has expired. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C.
Plaintiff explains that he seeks leave to amend the Complaint [#1] to resolve the "mootness issue" that Defendants have raised as a defense. In the Response, Defendants assert that Plaintiff failed to confer with counsel despite being warned about the duty to confer in a prior order. Additionally, Defendants point out that Plaintiff does not include with the Motion a proposed Amended Complaint for the Court's and Defendants' review.
Defendants are correct that the Motion does not comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A, which provides as follows:
The Court will not consider any motion, other than a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or 56, unless counsel for the moving party or a pro se party, before filing the motion, has conferred or made reasonable, good faith efforts to confer with opposing counsel or a pro se party to resolve the disputed matter. The moving party shall state in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the motion, the specific efforts to comply with this rule.The Motion is subject to denial on this basis alone.
Moreover, the Court will not accept a motion to amend the complaint without a proposed Amended Complaint. Thus, when filing a motion to amend, Plaintiff must submit a proposed Amended Complaint as a document separate from the motion. Plaintiff must include all claims he seeks to bring and defendants he intends to name in the proposed Amended Complaint. For these reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#54] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.