Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02457-PAB-KMT
09-25-2012
ASHANTI BLACK, Plaintiff, v. DR. JAMES THALKEN, DDS #15173, SHARON PHILLIP, Nurse Practioner, and DR. WORMER, Physician, Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's motions to amend his complaint (Doc. Nos. 51 and 52, filed September 24, 2012).
It appears Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint to add a new defendant, Tom Clements, who Plaintiff states was mistakenly left out of his original complaint, and also to add facts regarding the alleged continued failure of the defendants to provide dental care. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend a pleading by leave of court, and that leave shall be given freely when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Although the federal rules permit and require liberal construction and amendment of pleadings, the rules do not grant the parties unlimited rights of amendment. A motion to amend may be denied on the grounds of undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, or futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Obviously, the court must be able to review a proposed amendment to a complaint in order to determine its viability under the applicable law. Plaintiff has failed to submit a copy of his proposed amended complaint with his motions to amend. The court may deny a motion to amend a complaint for failure to submit the proposed amendment. See Lambertson v. Utah Dep't of Corrs., 79 F.3d 1024, 1029 (10th Cir. 1996) (district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to amend for failure to provide adequate explanation for delay in seeking amendment and for failure to provide a copy of the proposed amended pleading). See also Fleming v. Molloy, Case No. 07-cv-00118-MSK-CBS, 2007 WL 3254389, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 31, 2007)(motion to amend complaint denied for failure to attach proposed amended complaint.); Bownes v. City of Gary, Indiana, 112 F.R.D. 424, 425 (N. D. Ind.1986) ("common sense" dictates that a party seeking leave to amend should accompany his motion with a copy of the proposed amended complaint); Williams v. Wilkerson, 90 F.R.D. 168, 170 (E.D. Va. 1981) (where plaintiff sought leave to amend, a copy of the proposed amended pleading must be attached to the motion). Here, because Plaintiff has not attached a copy of his proposed amended complaint, it is impossible to determine if the proposed amendments are permissible.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions (Doc. No. 51 and 52) are DENIED without prejudice.
BY THE COURT:
____________
Kathleen M. Tafoya
United States Magistrate Judge