Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01343/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01343-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jonathan C. Bertanelli, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1343-PHX-PGR (LOA)

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Leave to File First

Amended Complaint, doc. 38. Defendant Ryan opposes the motion, doc. 40. Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 15 governs the amendment of complaints. Because Plaintiff’s motion for leave

to amend was filed more than 21 days after Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b), and Defendant opposes amendment, Plaintiff needs leave to amend his

complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B); docs. 28. Although Rule 15(a)(2) provides that leave to

amend should be freely given “when justice so requires,” Plaintiff must also comply with Local

Rule of Civil Procedure Local 15.1. As the Court has previously advised Plaintiff, Local Rule

15.1 provides, in relevant part, that:

A party who moves for leave to amend a pleading . . . must attach a copy

of the proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion

. . . which must indicate in what respect if differs from the pleading 

which it amends, by bracketing or striking through the text to be deleted

and underlining the text to be added. The proposed amended pleading is

not to incorporate by reference any part of the preceding pleading,

including exhibits.

LRCiv 15.1(a). 

Case 2:11-cv-01343-PGR Document 45 Filed 05/22/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

In his motion, Plaintiff copies portions of his original complaint and uses brackets

to identify it as text that is deleted from the original complaint. (Doc. 38 at 2-3) Plaintiff

further explains that to identify text that is added to the first amended complaint, his motion

contains such additional text which is underlined. (Doc. 38 at 3-5) Although Plaintiff’s motion

to amend identifies text to be added or deleted by way of amendment, his proposed First

Amended Complaint does not which hinders the Court’s ability to compare the original and

proposed amended complaint. (Doc. 38, attachment) Although Plaintiff has attempted to comply

with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 15.1, his attempt falls short. As Defendant notes, the

manner in which Plaintiff presents his proposed amendments makes it difficult to compare the

original and amended complaint. In view of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local Rule of

Civil Procedure 15.1(a), the Court will deny his motion for leave to amend. If Plaintiff seeks

to amend his complaint, he must submit a “proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the

motion. . . which must indicate in what respect if differs from the pleading which it amends,

by bracketing or striking through the text to be deleted and underlining the text to be added.”

LRCiv 15.1(a). It is not sufficient to identify the added or deleted text in a supporting motion,

rather the changes must be indicated on the proposed amended pleading itself. 

Thus, the Original Complaint stands, as does Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss that

Complaint, doc. 28. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Order Not

to Respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 39) The Court has previously extended

the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to the motion to dismiss to May 11, 2012. In an abundance

of caution, the Court will extend the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to the Motion to Dismiss

to June 4, 2012. In view of the denial of Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, his related

“Motion in Opposition to the Court’s anticipated pre-screening order Dismissing Plaintiff’s

Policy Claim,” doc. 42, is moot and will be denied as such. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended

Complaint, doc. 38, is DENIED without prejudice. 

Case 2:11-cv-01343-PGR Document 45 Filed 05/22/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion in Opposition to the Court’s

anticipated pre-screening order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Policy Claim,” doc. 42, is DENIED as

moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Order Not to

Respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, doc. 39, is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for Plaintiff to file a response to

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, doc. 28, is extended to June 4, 2012.

DATED this 21st day of May, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01343-PGR Document 45 Filed 05/22/12 Page 3 of 3