Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01472/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01472-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

David Ybarra, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Devon McLaws and David Dunn, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-1472-PHX-SLG (LOA)

ORDER

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

Complaint, doc. 10, and Plaintiff’s Motion to File, doc. 12.

I. Background

On July 9, 2012, Plaintiff, pro se, filed a Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1) On July 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.

(Doc. 5) Plaintiff asserted two claims for relief arising out of the same factual allegations,

namely, an Eighth Amendment violation and a claim for mental distress. (Id.). On August

24, 2012, the Court statutorily screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a). (Doc. 7) The Court ordered that Defendants McLaws and Dunn

answer Count I of the First Amended Complaint, but the Court dismissed the remaining

claims and defendants without prejudice. (Id.) Plaintiff filed the pending Motion for Leave

to Amend the Complaint, doc. 10, on August 31, 2012 and the Motion to File, doc. 12, on

September 11, 2012. Service on either Defendant has not been completed. 

Case 2:12-cv-01472-SLG Document 14 Filed 09/13/12 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 -

II. Motion for Leave to Amend

 Plaintiff has previously amended his Complaint and therefore he needs leave to

further amend his Complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15(a)(2) further provides that leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so

requires.” This, however, does not relieve Plaintiff from his responsibility to additionally

comply with the Local Rules of Civil Procedure (“LRCiv”) 15.1. 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). 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend with the attached Second Amended Complaint,

doc. 10, does not comply with Local Rule 15.1 The proposed pleading itself does indicate

how it differs from the First Amended Complaint which hinders the Court’s ability to

compare the original and proposed amended complaint. (Doc. 10, attachment) The Complaint

is barely legible in parts and 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 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. 

II. Motion to File

Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion to File” on September 11, 2012. (Doc. 12)

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and it appears that Plaintiff is attempting to

Case 2:12-cv-01472-SLG Document 14 Filed 09/13/12 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 -

submit evidence before the Court that supports his claim. The First Amended Complaint has

not yet been served and, as set forth above, the Court has denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave

to Amend. Plaintiff’s attempt to submit evidence at this point is premature. Therefore, the

Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to File without prejudice. 

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

DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to File is DENIED.

Dated this 13th day of September, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-01472-SLG Document 14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3