From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walker v. Spence

United States District Court, D. Colorado
May 27, 2008
Civil Action No. 07-cv-01848-WDM-KMT (D. Colo. May. 27, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 07-cv-01848-WDM-KMT.

May 27, 2008


ORDER


This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's "Motion to View All Documents Liberally and to Include All Documents into Mr. Walker's Formal Complaint" (#76, filed January 9, 2008). It is unclear what type of relief Plaintiff is seeking. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking to amend his complaint, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend a pleading by leave of court, and that leave shall be given freely when justice so requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Although the federal rules permit and require liberal construction and amendment of pleadings, the rules do not grant the parties unlimited rights of amendment. A motion to amend may be denied on the grounds of undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, or futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

When seeking leave of the court to amend a complaint, the motion to amend must detail the proposed amendments and the reasons why such amendments are necessary. In addition, the plaintiff must attach the proposed amended complaint to the motion. The proposed amended complaint must stand alone; it must contain all of the plaintiff's claims.

Here, the plaintiff does not describe the proposed amendment, nor does he attach a proposed amended complaint to his motion. As a result, it is impossible to determine if the proposed amendment is permissible.

Further, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that "[a]n application to the court for an order shall be by motion which . . . shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought." Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b). Plaintiff's motion is incomprehensible and fails to specify either any grounds for relief or the precise nature of the relief sought. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (#76) is DENIED.


Summaries of

Walker v. Spence

United States District Court, D. Colorado
May 27, 2008
Civil Action No. 07-cv-01848-WDM-KMT (D. Colo. May. 27, 2008)
Case details for

Walker v. Spence

Case Details

Full title:CLARENCE A. WALKER, Plaintiff, v. CHIEF SPENCE, CAPTAIN BAY, LIEUTENANT…

Court:United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: May 27, 2008

Citations

Civil Action No. 07-cv-01848-WDM-KMT (D. Colo. May. 27, 2008)