Allen v. Zavaras et al
ORDER denying 10 Plaintiff's Motion for Permission to Amend without prejudice, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 8/13/09.(gms, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland Civil Action No. 08-cv-02506-ZLW-BNB EDWARD ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. ARISTEDES ZAVARAS, J. HASSENFRITZ, MS. GRAHAM, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, and CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ This matter arises on the plaintiff's Motion for Permission to Amend [Doc. #10, filed 12/24/2008] (the "Motion"). The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The plaintiff seeks to supplement his Complaint to add two claims. The plaintiff has attached a copy of the proposed claims to the Motion. Rule 15 provides that a complaint may be amended once as a matter of course if a responsive pleading has not been served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). A responsive pleading has not yet been served in this case. Therefore, the plaintiff may amend his pleading as a matter of course. However, the plaintiff may not amend his Complaint by simply filing piecemeal amendments and supplements. Rather, he must file the entire proposed amended complaint. The plaintiff may not incorporate by reference his original Complaint into the amended complaint. The amended complaint must stand alone; it must contain all of the plaintiff's claims. Mink v.
Suthers, 482 F.3d 1244, 1254 (10th Cir. 2007) (stating that "an amended complaint supercedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal effect") (internal quotations and citations omitted). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion for Permission to Amend is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, subject to compliance with this Order. Dated August 13, 2009. BY THE COURT: s/ Boyd N. Boland United States Magistrate Judge
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?