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 

John Charles Holmes, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. Nielson, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-17-03910-PHX-ESW

ORDER 

 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 12). Plaintiff seeks 

to amend the Complaint (Doc. 1) filed October 23, 2017. By Order issued February 21, 

2018, the Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis and screened Plaintiff’s 

Complaint pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (Doc. 11 at 5). The Court ordered 

Defendants to answer Counts I and II (Id.). A Report and Recommendation is pending 

before District Judge McNamee regarding the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to 

dismiss with prejudice Count III (Doc. 11 at 5-6). Because Plaintiff has failed to comply 

with LRCiv. 15.1(a), the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend without prejudice. 

I. DISCUSSION 

 “A district court has discretion to adopt local rules . . . . Those rules have ‘the 

force of law.’” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010) (citation omitted). Hence, 

both the parties and the Court are bound by the local rules. LRCiv. 83.3(c) (1) (“Anyone 

appearing before the court is bound by these Local Rules.”); Professional Programs 
- 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 

Group v. Department of Commerce, 29 F.3d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1994). A district 

court’s departure from its local rules is justified only if the effect is “so slight and 

unimportant that the sensible treatment is to overlook [it].” Id. (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). 

 Local Rule 15.1(a) provides 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. The proposed 

amended pleading must not incorporate by reference 

any part of the preceding pleading, including exhibits. 

LRCiv 15.1(a) (emphasis added). 

Here, Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint (lodged at Doc. 13) does not 

indicate in what respect it differs from the Complaint (Doc. 1). Plaintiff has not 

bracketed or struck through the text to be deleted and has not underlined the text to be 

added. Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint (lodged at Doc. 13) therefore fails 

to comply with Local Rule 15.1(a), LRCiv. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local 

Rule 15.1(a) hinders the Court’s ability to compare the C o m p l a i n t a n d 

A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t . Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc.12) will 

be denied without prejudice.1

 The proposed Amended Complaint (lodged at Doc. 

13) shall be stricken. Plaintiff may refile a motion for leave to amend his 

Complaint and proposed Amended Complaint that complies with LRCiv. 15(a). 

 

1 U.S. Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099, 1102 n.1

(9th Cir. 1985), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Simpson v. Lear

Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Contrary to the defendants’ assertions,

Dominator’s motion for leave to amend its complaint was properly treated as a nondispositive motion.”); Morgal v. Maricopa County Bd. of Sup’rs, 284 F.R.D. 452, 458

(D. Ariz. 2012) (“Generally, a motion for leave to amend the pleadings is a nondispositive matter that may be ruled on by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1).”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 
- 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 

II. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons set forth herein, 

 IT IS ORDERED denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 

12). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking the proposed Amended Complaint lodged 

at Doc. 13. 

 Dated this 14th day of March, 2018. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge