Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00118-MSK-CBS.
October 31, 2007
ORDER
This civil action comes before the court on Mr. Fleming's "Motion to Amend Original Complaint" (filed October 30, 2007) (doc. # 72). Pursuant to the Order of Reference dated June 26, 2007 (doc. # 25) and the memorandum dated October 31, 2007 (doc. # 73), this matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge. The court has reviewed Mr. Fleming's Motion, the entire case file, and the applicable law and is sufficiently advised in the premises.
Defendants have filed their Answer (doc. # 55) to Mr. Fleming's Amended Complaint (doc. # 13). Thus, Mr. Fleming may amend his "pleading only by leave of court. . . ." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). The court may deny a motion to amend a complaint for failure to submit the proposed amendment. See Lambertson v. Utah Dept. of Corrections, 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 Zaidi v. Ehrlich, 732 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1984) (district court should have held motion to amend in abeyance pending submission of plaintiff's proposed amendment); 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). While Mr. Fleming has generally described his claims, he has not attached a copy of a complete proposed Second Amended Complaint. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Fleming's "Motion to Amend Original Complaint" (filed October 30, 2007) (doc. # 72) is DENIED for failure to submit the proposed Second Amended Complaint.