Okolie v. City of Seattle et al

Filing 20

MINUTE ORDER striking Plaintiff's 19 Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. Authorized by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM) cc: plaintiff via first class mail

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 EDMUND OKOLIE, Case No. C17-1531RSM Plaintiff, 9 10 MINUTE ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT v. 11 CITY OF SEATTLE, et al. 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 The following MINUTE ORDER is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief United States District Judge: On March 30, 2018, pro se Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (Dkt. #19). Plaintiff is commended for seeking leave to amend his Complaint in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 15(a)(2). However, Plaintiff’s motion did not comply with Local Rule 15, requiring that Plaintiff “attach a copy of the proposed amended” complaint as an exhibit. Local Rule 15 provides, in full: A party who moves for leave to amend a pleading, or who seeks to amend a pleading by stipulation and order, must attach a copy of the proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion or stipulation. The party must indicate on the proposed amended pleading how it differs from the pleading that it amends by bracketing or striking through the text to be deleted and underlining or highlighting the text to be added. The proposed amended pleading must not incorporate by reference any part of the preceding pleading, including exhibits. If a motion or stipulation for leave to amend is granted, the party whose pleading was amended must file and serve the amended pleading on all parties within ORDER – 1 1 2 3 4 5 fourteen (14) days of the filing of the order granting leave to amend, unless the court orders otherwise. Local Rule W.D, Wash. LCR 15. Plaintiff was previously alerted to the need to attach an amended complaint to a motion for leave to amend. Okolie v. City of Seattle, No. C15-1258RAJ, Dkt. #35 at 2. (W.D. Wash. 6 Nov. 22, 2016). At that time, Judge Jones noted the need to “treat pro se litigants with great 7 leniency when evaluating compliance with the technical rules of civil procedure” but that pro se 8 parties are still expected to follow the rules. Id. at 3. Judge Jones directed “Plaintiff to familiarize 9 10 himself with the local rules of this Court and those of Federal Civil Procedure” and pointed Plaintiff toward resources on the Court’s website. Id. at 4. 11 12 13 The Court’s requirement that a party seeking to amend its pleadings include a copy “indicat[ing] . . . how it differs from the pleading that it amends by bracketing or striking through 14 the text to be deleted and underlining or highlighting the text to be added” may seem overly 15 technical. However, the parties and the Court need to understand how the amended pleading will 16 be altered in order to respond and consider the request. This results in clarity as to the substance 17 18 19 20 of the amended pleading that the moving party seeks to file. Plaintiff’s motion is unclear as to whether it is adding, altering, or replacing claims and factual allegations. Nothing in this Order prevents Plaintiff from refiling a motion for leave to amend his 21 complaint with the proper supporting documents in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 22 Procedure, the Local Rules of the Western District of Washington, and the prior orders of this 23 Court. Plaintiff is reminded of the Court’s June 1, 2018 deadline for joining additional parties or 24 amending the pleadings. 25 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint is STRICKEN. 26 27 ORDER – 2 1 2 3 The Court directs the Clerk to mail a copy of this Minute Order to Plaintiff at 435 Martin Luther King Jr. Way South, Seattle, WA 98144. Dated this 3 day of April, 2018. 4 WILLIAM McCOOL, Clerk 5 By: /s/ Paula McNabb Deputy Clerk 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER – 3

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?