Kyle et al v. Rosales et al
ORDER denying 37 Motion for Order: Plaintiff may re-file within ten (10) days. by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 2/10/2016. Text Only Entry(ggall, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Gordon P. Gallagher, United States Magistrate Judge
Civil Case No. 15 – CV – 2423 – RM - GPG
CLINTON W. KYLE and
MARY R. KYLE,
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB,
JOHN HICKENLOOPER and,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF COLORADO,
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND
This matter comes before the Court on the following motion and responses: Plaintiffs’
Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF #37), 1 Defendant Cannon’s Response (ECF # 44), Response
of the Moffat County Defendants (ECF #45) and Defendant Naldony’s Response (ECF # 46).
“(ECF #37)” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the Court’s
case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this Order.
The Motion has been referred to this Magistrate Judge for Order. The Court has reviewed the
pending motions and responses.
The Court has also considered the entire case file, the
applicable law, and is sufficiently advised in the premises.
Plaintiffs bring seven claims for relief in this action against some 15 separate Defendants
(ECF #1). Plaintiffs’ Complaint is not a model of clarity. However, the Court must construe the
Complaint liberally because Plaintiffs are not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However,
the Court should not act as an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
Plaintiffs move, pursuant to Rule 15A (sic), to amend their Complaint. Plaintiffs have
essentially filed a three page factual monologue, occasionally and inappropriately interspersed
with some supposed legal theory: e.g., “GAL standards2.5 c-1 c-2.” (sic) (ECF #37, p.3).
Plaintiffs utterly failed to comply with the Local Rules of Practice in two significant
respects. First, Plaintiffs failed to comply with the conferral requirement. D.C.COLO.LCivR
7.1 (a). Second, Plaintiffs failed to comply with requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 15.1(a)
Amendment as a Matter of Course or by Consent. A party who files an amended
pleading under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) or with the consent of the opposing party
shall file a separate notice of filing the amended pleading and shall attach as an
exhibit a copy of the amended pleading which strikes through (e.g., strikes
through) the text to be deleted and underlines (e.g., underlines) the text to be
Each of these requirements have important underpinnings in the court system. The conferral
requirement is clearly in keeping with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 which mandates and
espouses the ‘[j]ust, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”
Without this requirement, the court can imagine, without speculation, the raft of motions with
which a court could be buried for lack of sensical discussion between the parties.
The requirements of Rule 15.1 are no less important. Weeding through documents is
perhaps the biggest time sink for litigants and a court. The party filing the document best knows
what changes it is making and why. For that reason, it is incumbent on a party amending a
document to point out, in an easy fashion as outlined above, what is changing. That ultimately
saves time for all involved.
The Court is aware of but chooses not to address, at this time, the futility argument raised
in each of the various responses filed by the Defendants. That argument may be addressed at a
For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend is denied with leave to re-file a
motion complying with the Local Rules of Court within 10 days of this Order.
Dated at Grand Junction, Colorado, this 10th day of February, 2016.
Gordon P. Gallagher
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?