Rodriguez v. Mesa, City of et al

Filing 31

ORDER, denying without prejudice Plaintiff's Motion Absence of Leave to Amend Original Complaint 27 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 9/11/15.(REW)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Oger Rodriguez, No. CV-14-00699-PHX-DJH (ESW) Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Mesa, City of, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion Absence of Leave to Amend 17 Original Complaint” (Doc. 27) and Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion 18 Absence of Leave to Amend Original Complaint (Doc. 28). Pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(d), 19 the time to file a reply has expired. The matter is deemed submitted for decision. 20 Procedural History 21 Plaintiff is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis and filed a pro se 22 civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). The Court screened the 23 Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and Defendants Hermes and Trentz were 24 ordered to respond to Count One (Doc. 8). Defendants Hermes and Trentz were timely 25 served and filed an Answer (Doc. 16). The Court thereafter issued its Order (Doc. 19) 26 requiring that “[m]otions to amend the complaint and to join additional parties shall be 27 filed no later than March 31, 2015.” (Id. at 4). Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint 28 (Doc. 22), which the Court struck by an Order issued on June 23, 2015 (Doc. 26). 1 Standard of Review 2 Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend to add additional defendants, counts, and issues 3 (Doc. 27 at 2). However, Plaintiff has failed to comply with LRCiv 15.1(a). LRCiv 4 15.1(a) provides in pertinent part that “[a] party who moves for leave to amend a pleading 5 must attach a copy of the proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion, which 6 must indicate in what respect it differs from the pleading which it amends, by bracketing 7 or striking through the text to be deleted and underlining the text to be added.” A district 8 court’s local rules are not petty requirements, but have “the force of law.” Hollingsworth 9 v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 191 (2010) (citation omitted). The District Court of Arizona 10 routinely denies amendment motions for failure to comply with LRCiv 15.1(a). See, e.g., 11 Bivins v. Ryan, 2013 WL 321847, at *4 (D. Ariz. Jan. 28, 2013); J-Hanna v. Tucson 12 Dodge Inc., 2012 WL 1957832, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 31, 2012); Huminski v. Heretia, 13 2011 WL 2910536, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 18, 2011). 14 Here, Plaintiff does not attach a copy of the proposed amended complaint, instead 15 weaving new counts and people into the argument of his motion. Even if the Court were 16 to consider the motion to be the proposed amended complaint, the Court is not instructed 17 by brackets, strikes, or underlining how the proposed amended complaint differs from the 18 original Complaint. Though the Court previously has instructed the Plaintiff regarding 19 the requirements of LRCiv 15.1(a) in its Order filed on June 23, 2015 (Doc. 26 at 2-3), 20 the Plaintiff fails to comply with LRCiv 15.1(a). 21 In addition, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 27) is untimely filed pursuant to the Order of 22 the Court issued on February 6, 2015 (Doc. 19 at 4). Any motions to amend pleadings 23 were required to be filed no later than March 31, 2015. Plaintiff has not set forth good 24 cause for his untimely filing. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 25 (9th Cir. 1992) (“party seeking to amend a pleading after date specified in scheduling 26 order must first show ‘good cause’ for amendment under Rule 16(b), then, if ‘good 27 cause’ be shown, the party must demonstrate that amendment was proper under Rule 15”) 28 (quoting Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 85 (M.D.N.C. 1987)). -2- 1 Conclusion 2 Therefore, 3 IT IS ORDERED denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s “Motion Absence of 4 5 Leave to Amend Original Complaint” (Doc. 27). Dated this 11th day of September, 2015. 6 7 8 Honorable Eileen S. Willett United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?