Maxton v. USA et al
ORDER denying without prejudice 32 Motion to Amend Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 8/7/12.(sgrim)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 12–cv–00383–WYD–KMT
THERON JOHNNY MAXTON 85599-071,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
BOP DIRECTOR WASHINGTON D.C.,
T.K. TOZZA RHODES WARDEN FCI,
CHARLES DANIEL WARDEN FCT,
S. COLLINS HEALTH SERVICES USP, and
LT. ANTHONY USP FLORENCE,
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 32,
filed August 6, 2012). It appears Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint to add defendants.
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, 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. 32) is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 7th day of August, 2012.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?