Myers v. Hummel

Filing 142

MINUTE ORDER denying 141 Plaintiff's Motion to Correct, Amend, Modify Plaintiff's Original Complaint and in the Alternative Correct, Amend and Modify Plaintiff's More Definate [sic] Statement, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 02/02/2012.(wjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 11–cv–00400–KMT–KLM

BERNARD KENNETH MYERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DORWIN DWAYNE HUMMEL,
Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
Plaintiff’s “Motion to Correct, Amend, Modify Plaintiff’s Original Complaint and in the
Alternative Correct, Amend and Modify Plaintiff’s More Definate [sic] Statement” (Doc. No.
141, filed Feb. 2, 2012) is DENIED without prejudice. It appears that Plaintiff seeks to amend
his Amended Complaint.1 (Doc. No. 49, filed Apr. 26, 2011.) Though 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), 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, Plaintiff must attach the proposed amended
complaint to the motion. The proposed amended complaint must stand alone; it must contain all
of Plaintiff’s claims. Here, Plaintiff does not detail his proposed amendments, 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.
Dated: February 2, 2012

1

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to Amend his Original Complaint, the court notes that
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint (Doc. No. 1, filed Feb. 16, 2011) has been superceded by the
filing of his Amended Complaint. See Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515, 1517 (10th
Cir. 1991).