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.)

Download PDF
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?