Nagim v. Walker et al

Filing 77

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 74 Motion to Amend. Any proposed Second Amended Complaint which does not comply with this Minute Order will be summarily stricken by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/10/11.(jjh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02973-WYD-KLM
RONALD J. NAGIM,
Plaintiff,
v.
RAY WALKER, and
UNIVERSAL PERSONNEL,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend [Docket No. 74;
Filed November 9, 2011] (the “Motion”). The Court interprets the section of the Motion
titled “Relief” as a request for amendment of the Amended Complaint to include certain
types of damages, including damages and factual allegations against Suncor Energy, to
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Plaintiff labels his Motion as one brought pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 61;1 however, the addition of a new defendant to a lawsuit by the plaintiff is
properly governed by Rule 15(a). In consideration of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court thus
construes the Motion as a request for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff
did not include a proposed Second Amended Complaint for Defendants’ and the Court’s
review, nor did Plaintiff comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A., which alone is a basis for
denial of the Motion.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If
Plaintiff is seeking leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, he must file a motion which
complies with the federal and local rules (including Rule 7.1A.) and which includes the
proposed Second Amended Complaint as a document separate from the Motion. Plaintiff
is warned that the proposed Second Amended Complaint must not contain any previously
dismissed claims or defendants. Any proposed Second Amended Complaint which does
not comply with this Minute Order will be summarily stricken.
Dated: November 10, 2011

1

Rule 61 governs harmless error and prescribes that no error provides grounds for
“granting a new trial, for setting aside a verdict, or for vacating . . . a[n] order,” in the absence of an
effect on any party’s substantial rights. The purpose of this Rule arises from the goal of the federal
judiciary to issue “decisions on the merits, rather than determinations that turn on technicalities.”
4 Charles Alan Wright et al., Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1029 (3d ed.). Nothing in Plaintiff’s Motion
indicates that this Rule is the appropriate or applicable authority for the relief Plaintiff requests.