Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01434-CMA-MEH
11-16-2012
JOHN RAINEY, Plaintiff, v. HECTOR T. HUERTAS, TRAVIS TRANI, DENNIS BURBANK, and DR. HODGE, Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty , United States Magistrate Judge, on November 16, 2012.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion" for Clarification [filed November 15, 2012; docket #105] and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint [filed November 15, 2012; docket #106]. First, Plaintiff's "motion" for clarification actually seeks no relief. Rather, through this document, the Plaintiff informs the Court that he did not receive a copy of the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Therefore, because the Court cannot order relief under the circumstances, the motion is denied.
With respect to the motion to amend, the Plaintiff has attached a proposed Second Amended Complaint seeking to add "Richard" as a Defendant in this action; however, the proposed pleading, while naming Richard in addition to the present Defendants in the caption, only refers to Richard in the content of the pleading. Again, if Plaintiff seeks to bring claims against the present Defendants as well as Richard, he must allege all claims in the proposed Second Amended Complaint. See Franklin v. Kansas Dep't of Corr., 160 F. App'x 730, 734 (10th Cir. 2005) ("An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders the original complaint of no legal effect.") (citing Miller v. Glanz, 948 F. 2d 1562, 1565 (10th Cir. 1991)). Consequently, Plaintiff's motion to amend is denied without prejudice with leave to re-file in accordance with this order on or before November 30, 2012. If Plaintiff chooses to re-file his motion, he is instructed to title his amended pleading, "Second Amended Complaint."
Richard was the sole Defendant named in the original Complaint.