Medina v. Thurber

Filing 18

ORDER that plaintiff's 17 Motion to Amend is denied without prejudice to reassertion upon the filing of a proposed amended complaint. The next step in Plaintiff's case will be for the court to conduct an initial review of Plaintiff' ;s claims to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court will conduct this initial review in its normal course of business. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ERNEST MEDINA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL THURBER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:14CV301

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend his
Complaint. (Filing No. 17.) Plaintiff seeks the court’s leave to “add defendants and
cure any and all defects found” in his original Complaint.
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides “[t]he court should
freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The
applicable standard is summarized in Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962),
which states:
If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may
be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to
test his claims on the merits. In the absence of any apparent
reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of
the movant, . . . undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of the
allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the leave
sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.”
Id. In addition, Nebraska Civil Rule 15.1 provides that “[a] party who moves for
leave to amend a pleading (including a request to add parties) must file as an
attachment to the motion an unsigned copy of the proposed amended pleading that
clearly identifies the proposed amendments.” NECivR 15.1(a). In pro se cases, the
court may consider an amended pleading as supplemental to the original pleading.

NECivR 15.1(b).
Plaintiff did not file a copy of his proposed amended complaint. In addition,
his request for leave to amend does not provide the information necessary for the
court to consider whether to allow Plaintiff to amend his Complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s Motion (Filing No. 17) is
denied without prejudice to reassertion upon the filing of a proposed amended
complaint. The next step in Plaintiff’s case will be for the court to conduct an initial
review of Plaintiff’s claims to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court will conduct this initial review in its normal
course of business.
DATED this 13th day of January, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District
of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The
court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases
to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

2