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 

Anthony Michael Koch, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Brad Jacobs, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-18-08068-PCT-DLR (ESW)

ORDER 

Plaintiff Anthony Michael Koch, who is confined in the Mohave County Jail, has 

filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). The Court 

ordered Defendants Jacobs and Tribolet to answer Count One of the Complaint and 

dismissed Defendant Lake Havasu City Police Department and the remaining claims (Doc. 

5). Defendants Jacobs and Tribolet filed their Answer (Doc. 13), and all issues are joined. 

On August 7, 2018, the Court issued its Scheduling Order which required that all motions 

to amend the Complaint be filed no later than October 4, 2018 (Doc. 14 at 4). On February 

6, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 31). No motion accompanies 

the First Amended Complaint. Nor does the First Amended Complaint set forth by 

underline, brackets, or strike how it differs from the original Complaint. 

“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. 
- 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 

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 First Amended Complaint is not accompanied by a motion 

requesting leave to file an amended complaint and demonstrating good cause for the late 

filing. Plaintiff does not indicate in what respect his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 31) 

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 First Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 31) therefore fails to comply with LRCiv 15.1(a). Even if the Court were 

to find good cause for Plaintiff’s late filing, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local Rule 

15.1(a) hinders the Court’s ability to compare the Complaint and First Amended 

Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint shall be stricken. LRCiv 

7.2(m) (allowing the Court to strike a pleading that is unauthorized by statute, rule, or court 

order). If Plaintiff can establish good cause to allow the late filing, Plaintiff may refile a 

Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint and proposed First Amended Complaint that 

complies with LRCiv 15.1(a). 

For the reasons set forth herein, 

IT IS ORDERED striking Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 31). 

Dated this 13th day of February, 2019. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge