Horton v. Zavaras et al

Filing 45

ORDER denying without prejudice 43 Plaintiff's Motion to Request Leave of the Court to Amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoners Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 3/24/11.(lsw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya Civil Action No. 09­cv­02220­WJM­KMT

DeANGELO HORTON, Plaintiff, v. AVCF STAFF MEMBER JOHN DOE (Warden Arellano's Designee), CSP STAFF MEMBER JOHN DOE (Warden Jones' Designee), AVCF STAFF MEMBER REEVES, AVCF STAFF MEMBER GRAHAM, AVCF STAFF MEMBER KURTZ, AVCF STAFF MEMBERS JOHN AND/OR JANE DOES (Committee Members for 30 Day Reviews), CSP CASE MANAGER DEFUSCO, CSP COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN OLSON, and CSP STAFF MEMBERS JOHN AND/OR JANE DOES (Committee Members for 30 Day Reviews), all defendants in their official and individual capacities, Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on "Plaintiff's Motion to Request Leave of the Court to Amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoners Complaint" (Doc. No. 43, filed March 22, 2011). It appears that Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint to allege personal participation by each defendant. (Id. at 2.)

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 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. 43) is DENIED without prejudice. Dated this 24th day of March, 2011.

2