Duncan v. Ritter Jr. et al
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 8/6/14. IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Amendment to Complaint and Introducing New Evidence 51 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, subject to compliance with thisOrder. (bsimm, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00301-REB-BNB
JAMES ROGER DUNCAN,
BILL RITTER, JR., ex-governor,
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, governor,
RICK RAEMISCH, executive director,
WARDEN FALK, and
CASE MANAGER LUECK,
This matter is before me on the plaintiff’s Motion for Amendment to Complaint and
Introducing New Evidence [Doc. #51, filed 07/09/2014] (the “Motion”). The Motion is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The plaintiff seeks to amend his Complaint to add new allegations and attachments. The
plaintiff has not attached a copy of the proposed amended complaint to his motion to amend.
The plaintiff may not amend his Complaint by simply filing piecemeal amendments and
supplements. Rather, he must file the entire proposed amended complaint. The plaintiff may not
incorporate by reference his original Complaint into the amended 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 legal effect”) (internal quotations and
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Amendment to Complaint and Introducing
New Evidence [Doc. #51] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, subject to compliance with this
Dated August 6, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
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?