Smith v. Snohomish County et al

Filing 36

ORDER denying 33 Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint signed by Judge Theresa L Fricke. (GMR)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5
6

TROY SMITH,

7
8
9

v.

Plaintiff,

SNOHOMISH COUNTY , et al.,
Defendants.

10

Case No. 2:24-cv-00288-TLF
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
(DKT. 33)

11

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second

12

amended complaint. Dkt. 33. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se 1. Defendants did not respond

13

to plaintiff’s motion.

14

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) 15(a), “[a] party

15

may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a

16

responsive pleading is served.” Otherwise, the party “may amend the party's pleading

17

only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party.” Leave to amend “shall

18

be freely given when justice so requires,” and “this policy is to be applied with extreme

19

liberality.” Id.; Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir.

20

1990). After a responsive pleading has been filed, “leave to amend should be granted

21

unless amendment would cause prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith,

22
23
24
25

1 Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew from the case on October 15, 2024. Dkt. 32.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (DKT.
33) - 1

1

is futile, or creates undue delay.” Martinez v. Newport Beach City, 125 F.3d 777, 786

2

(9th Cir. 1997).

3

Although leave to amend under this rule is generally freely given, it is important

4

that a plaintiff comply with Local Civil Rule (“LCR”) 15. Under LCR 15, when a party

5

moves to amend a pleading, they must:

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Attach a copy of the proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the
motion or stipulated motion. 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.
In this case, plaintiff did not fully comply with LCR 15. Although he attached a
copy of his proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion (see Dkt. 33-1),
plaintiff's pleading is deficient because the proposed second amended complaint does
not adequately identify the differences with the amended complaint (Dkt. 21). Short of
comparing every word in those paragraphs to those in the amended complaint, the
Court cannot identify the specific differences. This requirement facilitates the Court’s
ability to ascertain the causes of action and amendments that are proposed, to
determine whether the amendments would or would not be futile. See Leadsinger, Inc.
v. BMG Music Publ'g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008).

20
21
22
23
24
25

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (DKT.
33) - 2

1

Therefore, the Court denies plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended

2

complaint without prejudice. This means plaintiff may refile the motion if he complies

3

with Local Civil Rule 15 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.

4
5
6

Dated this 22nd day of November, 2024.

7
8

A

9

Theresa L. Fricke
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (DKT.
33) - 3