Harper v. Federal Prison Industries, Inc. et al

Filing 147

ORDER denying 141 MOTION to Amend 18 Amended Complaint (actually entitled: Scheduling Order) by Plaintiff by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 12/29/09.(kmtcd, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya Civil Action No. 07­cv­00750­REB­KMT DON ALTON HARPER, Plaintiff, v. P. URBANO, P.A., and NORMAN S. ROSENTHAL, M.D., Defendants. ORDER This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's "Scheduling Order" (#141, filed December 21, 2009), docketed as a Motion to Amend the Complaint. In light of the court's duty to review pro se pleadings liberally, see Trackwell v. United States, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007), the court construes Plaintiff's submission as a motion to amend the 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. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion (#141) is DENIED without prejudice. Dated this 29th day of December, 2009. BY THE COURT: Kathleen M. Tafoya United States Magistrate Judge 2

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?