Kershaw v. Maketa

Full title: KEM KERSHAW, Plaintiff, v. TERRY MAKETA, EL PASO COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Sep 4, 2009

Civil Action No. 09-cv-01203-PAB-BNB (D. Colo. Sep. 4, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 09-cv-01203-PAB-BNB.

September 4, 2009

ORDER

BOYD BOLAND, Magistrate Judge

This matter arises on the plaintiff's Motion to Amend Above Entitled Civil Action with Supporting Arguments [Doc. #31, filed 07/22/2009] (the "Motion"). The Motion is DENIED.

The plaintiff seeks to amend the "above entitled civil action with supporting arguments." The Motion contains sixteen handwritten pages of arguments and supporting case law. It does not appear to be a response to any pending motion.¹ The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not allow for a submission of arguments that are not part of a response to a pending motion.

1 Indeed, by separate motion [Doc. #44], the plaintiff has sought an extension of time to respond to defendants Maketa and El Paso County Criminal Justice Center's motion to dismiss.

The Motion does not appear to be an attempt to amend the Complaint because it is replete with argument and case law. However, to the extent the plaintiff is attempting to amend his Complaint, he may not amend by filing a supplement. Instead, he must file the entire proposed amended complaint. The plaintiff may not incorporate by reference his original Complaint into the amended complaint. The amended complaint must stand alone; it must contain all of the plaintiff's claims. Mink v. Suthers, 482 F.3d 1244, 1254 (10^th Cir. 2007) (stating that "an amended complaint supercedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal effect") (internal quotations and citations omitted).

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.