Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-00839-MSK-KMT.
October 25, 2010
ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's "Motion for Permission to Ammend [sic] Complaint in the Above Captioned Matter" (Doc. No. 30, filed October 22, 2010).
At this stage of the case, Plaintiff may amend her Complaint (Doc. No. 10) "with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). The court may deny a motion to amend a complaint for failure to submit the proposed amendment. See Zaidi v. Ehrlich, 732 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1984) (district court should have held motion to amend in abeyance pending submission of plaintiff's proposed amendment); 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). Plaintiff has not submitted a copy of her proposed amended complaint to the court. The court may properly deny Plaintiff's request to again amend her complaint, based on Plaintiff's failure to submit a copy of the proposed amended complaint to the court. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Motion for Permission to Ammend [sic] Complaint in the Above Captioned Matter" (Doc. No. 30) is DENIED without prejudice for failure to submit a copy of the proposed amended complaint.
Dated this 25th day of October, 2010.