Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02625/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02625-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 05:0701 Maritime Subsidy Board

---

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

1

The Local Rules are available online at: www.azd.uscourts.gov

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Randy S. Roberts, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Francis J. Harvey,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2625-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Randy S. Roberts’ (“Plaintiff”) second Motion

to Amend Complaint for Discharge Relief. (Dkt. No. 26) 

 As the Court explained in the Order dated July 10, 2007, Rule 15(a) provides that a

“party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a

responsive pleading is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. In the present case, no responsive pleading

has been served. Therefore, Plaintiff retains an automatic right to amend his Complaint a

single time. However, pursuant to Rule 15.1(a) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United

States District Court for the District of Arizona (“Local Rules”), Plaintiff is required to attach

a copy of the proposed amended pleading to the motion to amend the pleading.1

Additionally, a party seeking to amend a pleading must lodge with the Clerk of Court an

original of the proposed amended pleading. LRCiv. 15.1(b). Here, Plaintiff, appearing pro

Case 2:06-cv-02625-SMM Document 28 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

se, has once again failed to comply with the Local Rules. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to

lodge the Amended Complaint that he seeks to file with the Court. Based upon Plaintiff’s

statement, it appears that he is under the impression that the Court itself will amend his

Complaint to include the points of clarification that he specifically addresses in his motion.

If this is in fact Plaintiff’s belief, then he is mistaken. It is Plaintiff’s duty to amend his

Complaint, including the additional points that he seeks to raise, and then file this new

version of the Complaint with the Court. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion

without prejudice and require Plaintiff to re-file the proposed amended complaint in

compliance with Rule 15.1 of the Local Rules.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint for Discharge Relief.

(Dkt. No. 26) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

DATED this 2nd day of August, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02625-SMM Document 28 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 2