Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-02205-LTB-CBS.
May 19, 2008
ORDER
This civil action comes before the court on: (1) Mr. Trujillo's "Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Pages of Response and for Leave to Amend the Complaint" (filed May 12, 2008) (doc. # 28); (2) Mr. Trujillo's "Motion to Amend Complaint to Include Titles of Claims of Actions" (filed May 12, 2008) (doc. # 29); and (3) Mr. Trujillo's "Motion to Amend the Complaint and for Extension of Time" (filed May 15, 2008) (doc. # 32). Pursuant to the Order of Reference dated November 20, 2007 (doc. # 7) and the memoranda dated May 14, 2008 (doc. # 31) and May 19, 2008 (doc. # 34), these matters were referred to the Magistrate Judge. The court has reviewed the Motions, the entire case file, and the applicable law and is sufficiently advised in the premises.
As Defendants have not filed a "responsive pleading," Mr. Trujillo may amend his "pleading once as a matter of course." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). However, the court may deny a motion to amend a complaint 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). See also Zaidi v. Ehrlich, 732 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1984) (district court should have held motion to amend in abeyance pending submission of plaintiff's proposed amendment); Bownes v. City of Gary, Indiana, 112 F.R.D. 424, 425 (N.D. Ind. 1986) ("common sense" dictates that a party seeking leave to amend should accompany his motion with a copy of the proposed amended complaint); Williams v. Wilkerson, 90 F.R.D. 168, 170 (E.D. Va. 1981) (where plaintiff sought leave to amend, a copy of the proposed amended pleading must be attached to the motion). While Mr. Trujillo has briefly described some of the amendments he seeks to allege, he has not attached a copy of a complete proposed Amended Complaint. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Mr. Trujillo's "Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Pages of Response and for Leave to Amend the Complaint" (filed May 12, 2008) (doc. # 28) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Mr. Trujillo's "Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Pages of Response . . ." is GRANTED. Mr. Trujillo's full response (doc. # 33) was filed on May 15, 2008. Mr. Trujillo's "Motion . . . for Leave to Amend the Complaint" is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to submit a copy of the proposed Amended Complaint.
2. Mr. Trujillo's "Motion to Amend Complaint to Include Titles of Claims of Actions" (filed May 12, 2008) (doc. # 29) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to submit a copy of the proposed Amended Complaint.
3. Mr. Trujillo's "Motion to Amend the Complaint and for Extension of Time" (filed May 15, 2008) (doc. # 32) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to submit a copy of the proposed Amended Complaint.