Vreeland v. Fisher et al
ORDER. ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint as to the Douglas County and CDOC Defendants 60 is DENIED without prejudice. ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Motion to File an Amended Complaint 71 is DENIED as moot by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 03/24/14.(jhawk, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 13–cv–02422–PAB–KMT
DELMART E.J.M VREELAND, II,
THOMAS C. FISHER, MD,
KAREN A. JOHNSON, MD,
JOAN M. SHOEMAKER,
HEART OF THE ROCKIES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,
THE DOUGLAS COUNTY SHERIFF, MR. WEAVER,
KARI BARONI, CDOC/BVCF, H.S.A., and
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint as to the Douglas County and CDOC Defendants” (Doc. No. 60, filed February 28,
Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to add claims and defendants. (See Doc. No. 60,
¶¶ 12–13.) Plaintiff states he wishes to incorporate his original complaint to his proposed
amended complaint. (Id., ¶ 11.)
At the outset, the court notes that Plaintiff is mistaken about his belief that he may amend
as a matter of course as to Defendants Johnson and Heart of the Rockies Regional Medical
Center. The plain language of the rule, as well as the advisory committee notes regarding the
2009 rule amendments, dictate that Plaintiff’s 21-day clock to amend as a matter of course began
to run on January 13, 2014, when Defendants Aragon, French, and The Douglas County Sheriff,
filed their Motion to Dismiss. (See Doc. No. 35.) Because that clock expired on February 3,
2014, Plaintiff may not file his Amended Complaint without first obtaining leave of court. The
advisory committee notes make clear that the “whichever is earlier” language in Rule 15(a)(1) is
not intended to be cumulative. “If a responsive pleading is served after one of the designated
motions is served, for example, there is no new 21–day period.”1 Plaintiff’s motion to amend as
a matter of course properly is denied.
Moreover, Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint fails to comply with the pleading
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. The twin purposes of a complaint are to give the opposing
parties fair notice of the basis for the claims against them so that they may respond and to allow
the court to conclude that the allegations, if proven, show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.
See Monument Builders of Greater Kansas City, Inc. v. American Cemetery Ass’n of Kansas,
891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir. 1989). The requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 are designed to
meet these purposes. See TV Communications Network, Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., 767 F.Supp. 1062,
1069 (D. Colo. 1991), aff’d, 964 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1992).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 advisory committee’s note (providing an example of how the 21-day
deadline in Rule 15(a)(1)(B) is not cumulative).
Plaintiff seeks to combine his original 44-page complaint with the newly-proposed 74page complaint to form one complaint. (Doc. No. 60-1 at 6.) However, the plaintiff may not
amend his Complaint by simply filing piecemeal amendments and supplements. Rather, he must
file the entire proposed second amended complaint. The plaintiff may not incorporate by
reference his original Complaint. The 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
Moreover, Plaintiff is reminded of his duty to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), which
provides that a complaint “must contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court's jurisdiction, . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought.” Id. The philosophy of Rule 8(a) is
reinforced by Rule 8(d)(1), which provides that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and
direct.” Taken together, Rules 8(a) and (d)(1) underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and
brevity by the federal pleading rules. Prolix, vague, or unintelligible pleadings violate the
requirements of Rule 8.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that the “Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint as to the Douglas
County and CDOC Defendants” (Doc. No. 60) is DENIED without prejudice. It is further
ORDERED that the “Joint Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion to File an Amended
Complaint” (Doc. No. 71) is DENIED as moot.
Dated this 24th day of March, 2014.
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?