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 

Danny Lee Monts, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Aaron Bowen, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00754-PHX-DJH (ESW)

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Danny Lee Monts, who is now confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Eyman, in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive use of force (Doc. 8). The Court ordered Defendants 

Griffiths, Anderson, Del Castillo, and Washington to answer Count II. Service has been 

executed as to all Defendants (Docs. 17-20). The time to answer has not yet run. Pending 

before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 14). Plaintiff requests 

“leave of this Court to Amend the Complaint to rectify the deficiencies of the Complaint 

as outlined in this Honorable Courts order dated November 13th of 2018.” (Id. at 2). 
- 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 

“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 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 does not indicate in what respect his amended complaint would differ 

from the Complaint (Doc. 8). Plaintiff has not attached to his Motion a proposed amended 

complaint with bracketed or struck through text to be deleted and underlined text to be 

added. Plaintiff’s Motion 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 consider 

Plaintiff’s request. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc.14) will be 

denied without prejudice.1

 Plaintiff may refile a Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint 

and proposed First Amended Complaint that complies with Local Rule 15.1(a), LRCiv. 

For the reasons set forth herein, 

 

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 

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

Complaint (Doc. 14). 

 Dated this 4th day of February, 2019. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge