Toney v. Berkebile et al

Filing 47

ORDER denying 40 Motion to Seek Leave to File Amended Complaint. Any future attempts to amend the Amended Complaint must comply with my order of March 25, 2013; and Failure to comply with my orders may result in sanctions, including dismissal of this case. By Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 06/27/13. (alvsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00111-RM-BNB
JOE M. TONEY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN BERKEBILE,
A.W. HALL,
A.W. KUTA,
S.I.S. REDDEN,
R. MARTINEZ,
MS. RANGEL,
MS. SUDLOW, and
MR. MADISON,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the plaintiff’s Motion to Seek Leave to File Amended Complaint
[Doc. #40, filed 06/06/2013] (the “Motion”). The Motion is DENIED.
The plaintiff filed his Amended Prisoner Complaint [Doc. #20] (the “Amended
Complaint”) on February 15, 2013. The Amended Complaint asserts four claims. On March 21,
2013, the plaintiff filed a “Supplemental Complaint” in which he attempted to assert claims
against four additional defendants (Messrs. Cedeno, Perkins, Cochran, and Parry). I struck the
Supplemental Complaint, and stated:
The plaintiff may not amend his Amended Complaint by simply
filing piecemeal amendments and supplements. Rather, he must
seek leave to amend, and the motion to amend must be
accompanied by a copy of the entire proposed second amended
complaint. The plaintiff may not incorporate by reference his

original Complaint or his Amended Complaint into the second
amended complaint. The second 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 March 25, 2013 [Doc. #30].
The plaintiff now seeks leave to amend his Complaint to add claims against numerous
additional defendants (Mr. Miedich, Captain Snider, Lt. Giconi, “the Warden’s,” “the Unit
Team,” and Mr. Marshall). In disregard of my order of March 25, 2013, the plaintiff failed to
attach a copy of his proposed second amended complaint to the Motion. Instead, he attached a
copy of the Amended Complaint.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) The Motion [Doc. # 40] is DENIED;
(2) Any future attempts to amend the Amended Complaint must comply with my order
of March 25, 2013; and
(3) Failure to comply with my orders may result in sanctions, including dismissal of this
case.
Dated June 27, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2