Opinion
No. CV-19-00734-PHX-JJT (ESW)
05-16-2019
William Todd McEnany, Plaintiff, v. Correctional Health Services, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff William Todd McEnany, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). In its Order of April 18, 2019, the Court dismissed without prejudice Defendant Correctional Health Services and Count Two, requiring Defendants Coroles and Freedman to answer Count One. (Doc. 5 at 7). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 7).
"A district court has discretion to adopt local rules. . . . Those rules have 'the force of law.'" Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010) (citation omitted). Hence, both the parties and the Court are bound by the local rules. LRCiv. 83.3(c) (1) ("Anyone appearing before the court is bound by these Local Rules."); Professional Programs Group v. Department of Commerce, 29 F.3d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1994). A district court's departure from its local rules is justified only if the effect is "so slight and unimportant that the sensible treatment is to overlook [it]." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Local Rule 15.1(a) provides that:
A party who moves for leave to amend a pleading must attach a copy of the proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion, which must indicate in what respect it differs from the pleading which it amends, by bracketing or striking through the text to be deleted and underlining the text to be added. The proposed amended pleading must not incorporate by reference any part of the preceding pleading, including exhibits.LRCiv 15.1(a) (emphasis added).
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 7) does not attach a proposed First Amended Complaint as required by LRCiv 15.1 (a). Plaintiff's failure to comply with Local Rule 15.1(a) hinders the Court's ability to compare the original Complaint with the proposed First Amended Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 7) will be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile a Motion to Amend Complaint and proposed First Amended Complaint that complies with Local Rule 15.1(a), LRCiv.
For the reasons set forth herein,
IT IS ORDERED denying without prejudice Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 7).
Dated this 16th day of May, 2019.
/s/_________
Honorable Eileen S. Willett
United States Magistrate Judge
U.S. Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099, 1102 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 1996) ("Contrary to the defendants' assertions, Dominator's motion for leave to amend its complaint was properly treated as a nondispositive motion."); Morgal v. Maricopa County Bd. of Sup'rs, 284 F.R.D. 452, 458 (D. Ariz. 2012) ("Generally, a motion for leave to amend the pleadings is a nondispositive matter that may be ruled on by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).