Opinion
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02509-RBJ-KMT
11-20-2013
SHAUN BOGNER, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER GROGAN, and OFFICER R. OLIVETT, Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's "Motion for Leave to Amend 'Add' Defendants" (Doc. No. 25, filed November 8, 2013).
Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint to add new defendants. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend a pleading by leave of court, and that leave shall be given freely when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Although the federal rules permit and require liberal construction and amendment of pleadings, the rules do not grant the parties unlimited rights of amendment. A motion to amend may be denied on the grounds of undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, or futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
When seeking leave of the court to amend a complaint, the motion to amend must detail the proposed amendments and the reasons why such amendments are necessary. Additionally, the court must be able to review a proposed amendment to a complaint in order to determine its viability under the applicable law. Here, the plaintiff does not detail why he wishes to add the additional defendants, and he has failed to submit a copy of his proposed amended complaint with his motion to amend. The court may deny a motion to amend a complaint for failure to submit the proposed amendment. See Lambertson v. Utah Dep't of Corrs., 79 F.3d 1024, 1029 (10th Cir. 1996) (district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to amend for failure to provide adequate explanation for delay in seeking amendment and for failure to provide a copy of the proposed amended pleading). See also Fleming v. Molloy, Case No. 07-cv-00118-MSK-CBS, 2007 WL 3254389, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 31, 2007)(motion to amend complaint denied for failure to attach proposed amended complaint.); Bownes v. City of Gary, Indiana, 112 F.R.D. 424, 425 (N. D. Ind.1986) ("common sense" dictates that a party seeking leave to amend should accompany his motion with a copy of the proposed amended complaint); Williams v. Wilkerson, 90 F.R.D. 168, 170 (E.D. Va. 1981) (where plaintiff sought leave to amend, a copy of the proposed amended pleading must be attached to the motion). Here, because Plaintiff has not attached a copy of his proposed amended complaint and has failed to explain why the additional defendants should be added, it is impossible to determine if the proposed amendments are permissible.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (Doc. No. 25) is DENIED without prejudice.
________________
Kathleen M. Tafoya
United States Magistrate Judge