Moore v. Arguello et al

Filing 37

ORDER denying without prejudice 34 Motion to Amend and 36 letter Adding Additional Parties, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 2/3/2013.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01861-WJM-BNB
ARTHUR MOORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN ARGUELLO, and
CAPTAIN TOM MEEK,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the following papers (the “Papers”) filed by the plaintiff:
(1) Motion to Amend [Doc. #34, filed 01/23/2014]; and
(2) A paper titled “Adding Additional Defendant ‘Above’ Re: Due Process Violation
[Doc. #36, filed 02/03/2014].
The plaintiff filed his Second Amended Prisoner Complaint on October 9, 2013 [Doc.
#17] (the “Complaint”). He now seeks to supplement his Complaint with the Papers.
Rule 15, Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that a complaint may be amended once as a matter of
course within 21 days after serving it, or “if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is
required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion
under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). The plaintiff does
not meet the criteria for amendment as a matter of course. Therefore, he may amend his
Complaint “only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Id. at 15(a)(2).

“The court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Id. However,
the plaintiff may not amend his Complaint by simply filing piecemeal amendments and
supplements. Rather, he must file the entire proposed third amended complaint. The plaintiff
may not incorporate by reference his previous complaints into the proposed third amended
complaint. The proposed third 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”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Papers [Docs. ## 34 and 36] are DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, subject to compliance with this Order.
Dated February 3, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2