Forbes v. Garcia et al

Filing 63

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 62 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 03/03/2016.(mdave, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01860-MEH
JASON FORBES,
Plaintiff,
v.
GARCIA, Deputy, EID #13141,
C. JOHNSON, Deputy, EID #13095,
YOSHIMIYA, Deputy, EID #13080,
CHOAFE, Deputy, EID #12023, and
GONZALES, Deputy, EID #07092,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on March 3, 2016.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint [filed March 2, 2016; docket
#62] is denied without prejudice for failure to attach a complete proposed amended pleading. To
determine whether justice requires granting the proposed amendment(s), the Court must have the
opportunity to review a complete proposed pleading. In addition, because “[a]n amended complaint
supersedes the original complaint and renders the original complaint of no legal effect” (see
Franklin v. Kansas Dep’t of Corrs., 160 F. App’x 730, 734 (10th Cir. 2005)), the Court must have
a complete proposed pleading to review, not simply an “addition” to a previously stated claim for
relief. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s previously filed “Amended Complaint,” which was stricken
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), also does not constitute a complete proposed pleading.