Nagim v. Walker et al

Filing 89

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 80 Motion to Amend by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/15/11.(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. 80;
Filed November 14, 2011] (the “Motion”). Plaintiff includes a proposed Second Amended
Complaint within the text of the Motion. In consideration of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the
Court construes the Motion liberally. It appears to the Court that Plaintiff seeks the addition
of Suncor Energy as a defendant, as well as the resuscitation of his claim asserting
retaliation.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As
the Court has instructed Plaintiff in at least two prior Minute Orders [##68, 77], 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. Here, although
Plaintiff states that the Motion complies with Rule 7.1A., Plaintiff does not include a
statement of conferral or any indication as to whether Defendants oppose the relief
requested. Moreover, the Motion contains the Second Amended Complaint within its text,
and Plaintiff provides no legal authority or description of the facts in support of his request
to amend. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C. (“a motion involving a contested issue of law shall
state under which rule or statute it is filed and be supported by a recitation of legal authority
incorporated into the motion.”).
Furthermore, the Court previously warned Plaintiff that any proposed Second
Amended Complaint which contains any previously dismissed claims or defendants will be
summarily stricken. The Court construes Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint
to add a retaliation claim against a new defendant, Plaintiff’s previous employer Suncor
1

Energy. In Chief Judge Daniel’s Order issued May 6, 2011, the Court evaluated Plaintiff’s
previously stated claim of retaliation as related to his employment with Suncor Energy. The
Court found that “Plaintiff failed to show that the elements of a retaliation claim were met
. . . [Plaintiff] stated that he was asked to leave the Refinery on grounds of there being a
physical altercation, not because of the [allegedly defamatory] statement made to Oliver.”
[#45] at 5. Thus, it appears to the Court that Plaintiff is improperly attempting to resuscitate
a previously-dismissed claim in the Motion at issue. Again, any proposed Second
Amended Complaint which contains any previously dismissed claims or defendants will be
summarily stricken.
Dated: November 15, 2011

2