Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00531/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00531-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mary J. Crago
Plaintiff
Lenard
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARY J. CRAGO, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

LENARD, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:13-cv-0531-TLN-EFB PS 

ORDER 

 On September 18, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to amend her complaint to add additional 

defendants. ECF No. 24. 

On September 11, 2013, the court held an initial scheduling conference. Plaintiff 

indicated in the status report that she anticipated filing a motion to amend her complaint to assert 

claims against two additional officers whose identities were currently unknown. Based on that 

representations the court issued a the status (pretrial scheduling) order pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 16, see ECF No. 27, that granted plaintiff until October 23, 2013, to file 

a motion to amend. Id. at 2. 

 While plaintiff timely filed her motion, it must be denied because it fails to comply with 

the requirement that she include with the motion the proposed amended complaint. Nor does the 

motion make clear that her proposed amendment would state a viable claim(s). Eastern District 

Local Rule 137(c) requires a party seeking leave to amend to file a proposed amended complaint 

Case 2:13-cv-00531-EFB Document 30 Filed 10/15/13 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

with its motion to amend. Plaintiff’s motion only states that she wants to amend her complaint to 

add two additional defendants. It does not provide the names of the two individuals plaintiff 

wishes to add as defendants, nor does it contain any allegations against such individuals. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion will be denied without prejudice to filing another motion to 

amend complying with Local Rule 137(c). Plaintiff is cautioned that her proposed amended 

complaint must be complete in and of itself without reference to her prior complaint. Plaintiff is 

further instructed that a motion seeking leave to amend her complaint must be filed by October 

23, 2013. After that date, no further amendments will be permitted except with leave of court, 

good cause having been shown. See ECF No. 27. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint (ECF 

No. 24) is denied without prejudice to filing another motion to amend that complies with this 

court’s local rules. 

Dated: October 15, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-00531-EFB Document 30 Filed 10/15/13 Page 2 of 2