Collins v. Colorado Department of Corrections et al

Filing 69

ORDER denying 67 MOTION to Amend Plaintiff's Claims 24 Amended Complaint by Plaintiff by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 8/4/09.(kmtcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya Civil Action No. 08­cv­02657­WYD­KMT DAVID L. COLLINS, Plaintiff, v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, ARISTEDES ZAVARAS, MERYL DOHRMANN, JAMES LANDER, J.D. SCOLLARD, MARISSA SCHNELL, SWARTZ, PUETT, and SARGENT REDIESEL, Defendants.

ORDER This matter is before the court on "Request to Amend the Plaintiff's Claims Re: Civil Action No. 08-cv-02657-WYD-KMT" (Doc. No. 67, filed August 3, 2009). It appears Plaintiff wants to amend his complaint to add an additional defendant. 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 detail why the addition of another defendant is necessary, 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 (Doc. No. 67) is DENIED without prejudice. Dated this 4th day of August, 2009. BY THE COURT:

Kathleen M. Tafoya United States Magistrate Judge

2