Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-01476-MSK-CBS.
November 30, 2007
ORDER
This civil action comes before the court on Mr. Jackson's "Motion to File and Amended Complaint" (filed November 29, 2007) (doc. # 39). Pursuant to the Order of Reference dated August 16, 2007 (doc. # 11) and the memorandum dated November 29, 2007 (doc. # 40), this matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge. The court has reviewed Mr. Jackson's Motion, the entire case file, and the applicable law and is sufficiently advised in the premises.
"A party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. . . ." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). "Otherwise a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; . . ." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Here, no responsive pleading has yet been filed. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a). However, on November 14, 2007, this civil action was stayed pending a ruling on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (See doc. # 13). A motion to amend a complaint may also be denied for failure to submit the proposed amendment. See Lambertson v. Utah Dept. of Corrections, 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). While Mr. Jackson has generally explained that he wishes to add two Defendants, he has not attached a copy of a complete proposed Amended Complaint. Further, Mr. Jackson has failed to comply with the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, specifically D.C. COLO. LCivR 7.1A., which requires that before filing his Motion, Mr. Jackson must confer or make reasonable, good-faith efforts to confer with opposing counsel. Mr. Jackson has also failed to serve Defendants by mail with a copy of his Motion, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(a) and (b). (See doc. # 39 (lacking certificate of service)).
For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Jackson's "Motion to File and Amended Complaint" (filed November 29, 2007) (doc. # 39) is DENIED without prejudice.