Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00336-CMA-KMT
08-21-2012
DENNY BENTON, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF SOUTH FORK AND POLICE DEPARTMENT, FORMER POLICE CHIEF RANDY HERRERA, CURRENT POLICE CHIEF JAMES CHAVEZ, AT TIMES ACTING TOWN MANAGER AND CLERK SHARON FAIRCHILD, FORMER TOWN MANAGER TODD WRIGHT, FORMER MAYOR LARRY HEERSINK, TOWN MANAGER BILL MATTHEWS, TRUSTEE GROVER HAWETHORNE, COLORADO STATE PATROL DISPATCH ALAMOSA, COLORADO, and POLICE OFFICER PAM STEWART, Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
Plaintiff's letter to the court (Doc. No. 44, filed Aug. 15, 2012), which the court has construed as a motion to amend the complaint, is DENIED without prejudice for failure to confer pursuant to Local Rule 7.1A. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A ("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 the opposing counsel or a pro se party to resolve the disputed matter.")
Furthermore, when seeking leave of the court to amend a complaint, the motion to amend must detail the proposed amendments and the reasons why such amendments are necessary. In addition, the plaintiff must attach the proposed amended complaint to the motion. The proposed amended complaint must stand alone; it must contain all of the plaintiff's claims. Here, Plaintiff
does not attach a proposed amended complaint to his motion. As a result, it is impossible to determine if the proposed amendments are permissible.
Finally, Plaintiff's future filings must comply with the Local Rules governing the format of papers presented for filing. See, e.g. D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1E ("Spacing"), 10.1J ("Caption"), 10.1K ("Signature Block"). Plaintiff is advised that future non-complying papers may be stricken from the record without further notice.