Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00699/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00699-0/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 

Oger Rodriguez, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Mesa, City of, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-00699-PHX-DJH (ESW)

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion Absence of Leave to Amend 

Original Complaint” (Doc. 27) and Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion 

Absence of Leave to Amend Original Complaint (Doc. 28). Pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(d), 

the time to file a reply has expired. The matter is deemed submitted for decision. 

Procedural History 

 Plaintiff is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis and filed a pro se 

civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). The Court screened the 

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and Defendants Hermes and Trentz were 

ordered to respond to Count One (Doc. 8). Defendants Hermes and Trentz were timely 

served and filed an Answer (Doc. 16). The Court thereafter issued its Order (Doc. 19) 

requiring that “[m]otions to amend the complaint and to join additional parties shall be 

filed no later than March 31, 2015.” (Id. at 4). Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint 

(Doc. 22), which the Court struck by an Order issued on June 23, 2015 (Doc. 26). 

Case 2:14-cv-00699-DJH-ESW Document 31 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

Standard of Review 

 Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend to add additional defendants, counts, and issues 

(Doc. 27 at 2). However, Plaintiff has failed to comply with LRCiv 15.1(a). LRCiv 

15.1(a) provides in pertinent 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 it differs from the pleading which it amends, by bracketing 

or striking through the text to be deleted and underlining the text to be added.” A district 

court’s local rules are not petty requirements, but have “the force of law.” Hollingsworth 

v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 191 (2010) (citation omitted). The District Court of Arizona 

routinely denies amendment motions for failure to comply with LRCiv 15.1(a). See, e.g., 

Bivins v. Ryan, 2013 WL 321847, at *4 (D. Ariz. Jan. 28, 2013); J-Hanna v. Tucson 

Dodge Inc., 2012 WL 1957832, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 31, 2012); Huminski v. Heretia, 

2011 WL 2910536, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 18, 2011). 

 Here, Plaintiff does not attach a copy of the proposed amended complaint, instead 

weaving new counts and people into the argument of his motion. Even if the Court were 

to consider the motion to be the proposed amended complaint, the Court is not instructed 

by brackets, strikes, or underlining how the proposed amended complaint differs from the 

original Complaint. Though the Court previously has instructed the Plaintiff regarding 

the requirements of LRCiv 15.1(a) in its Order filed on June 23, 2015 (Doc. 26 at 2-3), 

the Plaintiff fails to comply with LRCiv 15.1(a). 

 In addition, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 27) is untimely filed pursuant to the Order of 

the Court issued on February 6, 2015 (Doc. 19 at 4). Any motions to amend pleadings 

were required to be filed no later than March 31, 2015. Plaintiff has not set forth good 

cause for his untimely filing. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 

(9th Cir. 1992) (“party seeking to amend a pleading after date specified in scheduling 

order must first show ‘good cause’ for amendment under Rule 16(b), then, if ‘good 

cause’ be shown, the party must demonstrate that amendment was proper under Rule 15”) 

(quoting Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 85 (M.D.N.C. 1987)). 

Case 2:14-cv-00699-DJH-ESW Document 31 Filed 09/11/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

Conclusion 

 Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s “Motion Absence of 

Leave to Amend Original Complaint” (Doc. 27). 

 Dated this 11th day of September, 2015. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:14-cv-00699-DJH-ESW Document 31 Filed 09/11/15 Page 3 of 3