Opinion
C23-0471-JLR-SKV
07-25-2023
THOMAS CADY, Plaintiff, v. KING COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER RE: PENDING MOTIONS
S. KATE VAUGHAN United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action, filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, Dkt. 34, and a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, Dkt. 39. The Court, having considered the motions and the remainder of the record, finds and concludes as follows:
(1) Plaintiff seeks additional time to conduct discovery. He notes restrictions on his access to the law library and requests that the current August 7, 2023 deadline for the completion of discovery be extended to September 7, 2023. Defendants did not object to or otherwise respond to the motion. The Court, finding the request reasonable, herein GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Dkt. 34. All discovery in this matter shall be completed by September 7, 2023 and any dispositive motions shall be filed and served on or before October 9, 2023. All other provisions of the Court's Pretrial Scheduling Order, Dkt. 32, remain in effect.
(2) Plaintiff also seeks leave to file an amended complaint. However, as with a prior motion in which Plaintiff sought leave to amend, see Dkts. 12 & 28, Plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint with his motion. Under the Local Civil Rules (LCR), a party seeking leave to amend must attach to the motion a copy of the proposed amended pleading as an exhibit and must indicate how it differs from the pleading it seeks to amend by “bracketing or striking through the text to be deleted and underlining or highlighting the text to be added.” LCR 15. Plaintiff, instead of filing a proposed amended pleading that complies with LCR 15, filed a copy of his original pleading, along with various other documents. See Dkts. 39 & 39-1. A motion to amend not accompanied by a proposed amended complaint is procedurally deficient and will not be considered. Because it is procedurally deficient, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, Dkt. 39, is hereby STRICKEN from the docket. If Plaintiff wishes to amend his Complaint, he must submit a new motion to amend together with a proposed amended complaint that complies with LCR 15.
Plaintiff also, both in this motion and in other filings, appears to indicate his intention to file a reply to Defendants' Answer. Plaintiff is advised that the Court's rules do not provide for the filing of a reply to an answer, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a), and that such a document should not be submitted.
(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to the parties and to the Honorable James L. Robart.