Conley v. Rivera et al

Filing 14

ORDER finding as moot 10 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying without prejudice 12 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 2/24/2017. (Chen, C.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JOHN L. CONLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSE RIVERA, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-2083 (VAB)

ORDER
Plaintiff, John L. Conley, currently incarcerated at Northern Correctional Institution, filed
this Complaint pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 20, 2017, the Court filed the Initial
Review Order dismissing the claims against all Defendants except Captain Rivera. ECF No. 11.
Mr. Conley has now filed a third motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 10, and a
motion seeking leave to amend his complaint, ECF No. 12.
The Court granted Mr. Conley’s second motion to proceed in forma pauperis on January
4, 2017. ECF No. 9. As the Court granted in forma pauperis status before Mr. Conley filed his
third motion, on January 10, 2017, ECF No. 10, the third motion is DENIED as moot.
Mr. Conley also seeks leave to amend his Complaint to add exhibits. ECF No. 12. The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only that plaintiffs provide a “short and plain statement
of the claim[s]” they wish to bring. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). As there is no requirement to
submit documentary evidence with a complaint, amendment to add exhibits is generally not
required. Furthermore, although Mr. Conley’s motion states that the exhibits “reflect the identity
and the actions of the defendant Captain Rivera,” ECF No. 12 at 1, the Court notes that the

proposed exhibits are medical records that contain no reference to Captain Rivera.
Because Mr. Conley has not submitted a proposed amended complaint, the Court cannot
determine how these medical record exhibits relate to the identity and actions of Captain Rivera
and, therefore, cannot properly evaluate Mr. Conley’s request for leave to amend his Complaint.
Although Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave" for a party
to amend its pleading "when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), the Court's ability to
determine whether justice requires giving leave to amend a complaint is curtailed if the motion to
amend does not include a copy of the proposed amended complaint. See Baker v. Blanchette,
Case No. 3:99-CV-548 (RNC) (DFM), 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23775, at *2-3 (D. Conn. Feb. 7,
2001) ("Common sense dictates that a party requesting leave to file an amended pleading must
accompany [her] motion with a copy of the proposed amended complaint... Without the proposed
amendment, it is impossible to determine whether justice requires that the amendment be
granted."). Thus, if Mr. Conley wishes to amend his Complaint to add these documents as
exhibits, he should file a renewed motion to amend, attach a proposed amended complaint that
explains the significance of the proposed exhibits, and attach the proposed exhibits.
Mr. Conley’s third motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 10, is DENIED as
moot and his motion to amend, ECF No. 12, is DENIED without prejudice to renewal.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 24th day of February, 2017.

/s/ Victor A. Bolden
Victor A. Bolden
United States District Judge

2