Colby et al v. County & Herrick et al

Filing 35

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 32 Motion for Leave of Court to Re- plead and Amend Petition by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 10/03/14.(jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01860-MSK-KLM
SUMMER R. COLBY, and
JAMES R. COLBY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DISTRICT COURT OF FREMONT COUNTY,
MICHAEL HERRICK, Brand Inspector,
COLORADO BRANDING COMMISSION, and
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave of Court to Re-plead
and Amend Petition [#32] (the “Motion”).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#32] is DENIED without prejudice. If
Plaintiffs, who proceed in this matter pro se, are seeking leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint, they must file a motion which complies with the federal and local rules, namely,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, and which includes the proposed Second Amended Complaint as a
document separate from the Motion. The Court will not permit piecemeal adjudication of
Plaintiffs’ case; thus Plaintiffs must include all claims they seek to bring and defendants
they intend to name in the proposed Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended
Complaint must set forth “what each defendant did to [them], when each defendant did it,
how each defendant's action harmed [them], what specific legal right each defendant
violated, and what remedy [they] seek[ ] for each violation.” Nasious v. Two Unknown
B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007); Lazarov v. Kimmel, No. 10-cv01238-CMA, 2010 WL 2301749 (D. Colo. June 8, 2010).

Dated: October 3, 2014