Darazs v. Brighthaupt et al
Filing
22
ORDER denying without prejudice 20 Motion to Amend/Correct. See ORDER, attached. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Smith on February 5, 2013. (Pylman, J.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CHRISTOPHER MIKE DARAZS,
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
v.
JON BRIGHTHAUPT, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-2019(AVC)
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND
The plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint.
He
states that he wants to add claims and supplement the factual
allegations of the current claims.
Although the plaintiff refers to an amended complaint, he has
not submitted a proper amended complaint with his motion.
amended
complaint
Therefore,
the
completely
amended
replaces
complaint
allegations and all claims.
must
the
prior
include
An
complaint.
all
factual
See International Controls Corp. v.
Vesco, 556 F.2d 665, 668 (2d Cir. 1977) (holding that the amended
complaint completely replaces original complaint), cert. denied,
434
U.S.
1014
(1978).
The
few
paragraphs
submitted
by
the
plaintiff are insufficient to enable the court to consider his
request to amend.
The plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend [Doc. #20] is DENIED
without
prejudice.
The
plaintiff
may
re-file
his
motion
accompanied by a proper amended complaint which includes all claims
he
intends
to
pursue
in
this
action
with
specific
factual
allegations describing how each defendant participated in the
events underlying his claims. All defendants must be listed in the
caption.
The Clerk is directed to send the plaintiff an amended
complaint form with this order.
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this
5th
day of
February 2013.
/s/ Thomas P. Smith
THOMAS P. SMITH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
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?