Patterson v. Dex Media, Inc.

Filing 23

ORDER: granting in part and denying in part 21 Motion to Amend complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 11/17/11.(bnbcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02336-LTB-BNB
BRENDA PATTERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEX MEDIA, INC., a Delaware corporation,
n/k/a Dex Media East, inc., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the plaintiff’s Motion Request to Amend My Complaint . . . .
[Doc. #21, filed 11/14/2011] (the “Motion”). The Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART.
The plaintiff seeks leave to amend her Complaint. She states that she is “unaware of how
to submit an amendment with the Courts, in the proper format and follow appropriate []
procedure to amend my complaint.” Motion, ¶ 6. However, I recently issued an order wherein I
explained the procedure:
[T]he plaintiff must either obtain consent from the defendant or
file a motion seeking leave of court to amend her Complaint. The
plaintiff may not amend her Complaint by simply including what
appear to be amended claims in the Papers. Rather, she must
include with her motion the entire proposed amended complaint.
Because she is proceeding pro se, the proposed amended
complaint must be submitted on the court’s standardized form.
D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1A. The plaintiff may not incorporate by
reference her original Complaint into the proposed amended
complaint. The proposed amended complaint must stand alone; it
must contain all of the plaintiff’s claims. Mink v. Suthers, 482

F.3d 1244, 1254 (10th Cir. 2007) (stating that “an amended
complaint supercedes an original complaint and renders the
original complaint without legal effect”).
Order issued October 27, 2011 [Doc. #18], pp. 2-3.
The plaintiff has not attached a proposed amended complaint to her motion to amend.
Therefore, the motion to amend is denied without prejudice, subject to compliance with Rule 15,
Fed. R. Civ. P.; Rule 8.1, D.C.COLO.LCivR; and my order of October 27, 2011.
The plaintiff also requests that the court cease serving papers on her former attorneys.
This request is granted. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The plaintiff’s request to amend her Complaint is DENIED without prejudice subject
to compliance with Rule 15, Fed. R. Civ. P.; Rule 8.1, D.C.COLO.LCivR; and my order of
October 27, 2011;
2. The Clerk of the Court shall cause the plaintiff’s former attorneys to be removed from
the service list; and
3. In the future, titles to all motions shall not exceed ten words.
Dated November 17, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2