Patterson v. DEX Media, Inc.

Full title: BRENDA PATTERSON, Plaintiff, v. DEX MEDIA, INC., a Delaware corporation…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Nov 17, 2011

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02336-LTB-BNB (D. Colo. Nov. 17, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02336-LTB-BNB

11-17-2011

BRENDA PATTERSON, Plaintiff, v. DEX MEDIA, INC., a Delaware corporation, n/k/a Dex Media East, inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant.

Boyd N. Boland

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

ORDER

This matter arises on the plaintiff's Motion Request to Amend My Complaint . . . . [Doc. #21, filed 11/14/2011] (the "Motion"). The Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

The plaintiff seeks leave to amend her Complaint. She states that she is "unaware of how to submit an amendment with the Courts, in the proper format and follow appropriate [] procedure to amend my complaint." Motion, ¶6. However, I recently issued an order wherein I explained the procedure:

[T]he plaintiff must either obtain consent from the defendant or file a motion seeking leave of court to amend her Complaint. The plaintiff may not amend her Complaint by simply including what appear to be amended claims in the Papers. Rather, she must include with her motion the entire proposed amended complaint. Because she is proceeding pro se, the proposed amended complaint must be submitted on the court's standardized form. D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1A. The plaintiff may not incorporate by reference her original Complaint into the proposed amended complaint. The proposed amended complaint must stand alone; it must contain all of the plaintiff's claims. Mink v. Suthers, 482
F.3d 1244, 1254 (10th Cir. 2007) (stating that "an amended complaint supercedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal effect").

Order issued October 27, 2011 [Doc. #18], pp. 2-3.

The plaintiff has not attached a proposed amended complaint to her motion to amend. Therefore, the motion to amend is denied without prejudice, subject to compliance with Rule 15, Fed. R. Civ. P.; Rule 8.1, D.C.COLO.LCivR; and my order of October 27, 2011.

The plaintiff also requests that the court cease serving papers on her former attorneys. This request is granted. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The plaintiff's request to amend her Complaint is DENIED without prejudice subject to compliance with Rule 15, Fed. R. Civ. P.; Rule 8.1, D.C.COLO.LCivR; and my order of October 27, 2011;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall cause the plaintiff's former attorneys to be removed from the service list; and

3. In the future, titles to all motions shall not exceed ten words.

BY THE COURT:

Boyd N. Boland

United States Magistrate Judge