Johnson v. Sierra County Board of County Commissioners et al

Filing 77

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lourdes A. Martinez DENYING without prejudice 74 Amended Motion to File Third Amended Complaint. (atc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

BRIAN JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

v.

No. CIV-16-0011 LAM/GJF

SIERRA COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CURTIS CHERRY,
GLENN HAMILTON, and JOE BACA,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT [Doc. 74]
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Leave to File
Third Amended Complaint and Reply to Defendants’ Objection for Leave to File Third
Amended Complaint (Doc. 73) (Doc. 74), filed on January 23, 2017. The Court finds that this
motion should be denied without prejudice for several reasons. First, Plaintiff’s amended motion
to file a Third Amended Complaint [Doc. 74] is improperly filed as both a reply to his first
motion to file a Third Amended Complaint [Doc. 72] and as a new motion. This violates the
Court’s Administrative Order 92-88, which provides that practitioners shall “submit a separate
pleading for each matter upon which adjudication or a ruling of the Court is sought,” and shall
“submit, in the case of responsive pleadings, a separate pleading addressing each motion or other
pleading to which a response is made.” Second, Plaintiff’s amended motion to file a Third
Amended Complaint fails to comply with the Court’s Local Rule 7.1(a) because it “omits
recitation of a good-faith request for concurrence” and, therefore, it “may be summarily denied.”

Instead, Plaintiff merely states: “Opposing counsel not immediately avaiable [sic] for Response.”
[Doc. 74 at 4]. The Court does not consider this statement a “recitation of a good-faith request
for concurrence” because it does not state when and how Plaintiff’s counsel contacted counsel
for Defendants or how much time they were given to respond. Finally, this motion fails to
comply with the Court’s Local Rule regarding “Form of Documents” because the majority of the
motion is typed using a font smaller than 12 pitch. See D.N.M. LR-Civ. 10.1 (“The typewritten
text of all documents must be at least 12 pitch.”). For these reasons, the Court will deny this
motion without prejudice, and Plaintiff is granted leave to re-file in compliance with the rules set
forth above.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s
Amended Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint and Reply to Defendants’
Objection for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 73) (Doc. 74) is DENIED
without prejudice with leave to re-file as set forth above and no later than Tuesday,
February 7, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________________
LOURDES A. MARTÍNEZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2