IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02721–MSK–KMT

BRUCE W. JONES,

Plaintiff,

v. 

MARK KELLAR, individually and in his official capacity as the health service Administrator at

FCI-Florence,

LISA MCDERMOTT, individually and in her official Capacity as Assistant Health Services

Administrator at FCI-Florence,

PETER BLUDWORTH, individually and in his official capacity as associate warden at FCIFlorence,

MIKE GOODIN, individually and in his official capacity as chief parmacist at FCI-Florence,

DR. DAVID ALLRED, individually and in his official capacity as clinical director of FCIFlorence,

DR. GEORGE SANTINI, individually and in his official capacity as staff Physician at FCIFlorenece,

CARI RITTER, individually and in her official capacity as mid-level Provider, at FCI-Florence,

MRS. A. VINYARD, individually and in her official capacity as Physician assistant at FCIFlorence,

GILBERTA TRUJILLO, individually and in her official capacity as secretary of medical at FCI

Florence,

MR. GRIFFIN, individually and in his official capacity as Correctional Officer at FCI-Florence,

JOHN DOE, individually and in his official capacity as Chief Health Programs at North Central

Region, Leavenworth, Kansas, and

DR. JAMES PELTON, individually and in his official capacity as Region Medical Director at

North Central Region, Leavenworth, Kansas,

Defendants.

ORDER

Case 1:11-cv-02721-MSK-KMT Document 80 Filed 08/03/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Amended Prisoner Complaint and or

Substitution of Defendant” (Doc. No. 79, filed August 2, 2012), which this court construes as a

motion to amend the complaint. It appears Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint to add the

United States Government as a defendant or to substitute the United States Government as a

defendant in place of Defendants Goodin and Ritter. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend a pleading by leave

of court, and that leave shall be given freely when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 

Although the federal rules permit and require liberal construction and amendment of pleadings,

the rules do not grant the parties unlimited rights of amendment. A motion to amend may be

denied on the grounds of undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,

repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the

opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, or futility of amendment. Foman v.

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

When seeking leave of the court to amend a complaint, the motion to amend must detail

the proposed amendments and the reasons why such amendments are necessary. In addition, the

plaintiff must attach the proposed amended complaint to the motion. The proposed amended

complaint must stand alone; it must contain all of the plaintiff’s claims. Here, Plaintiff does not

attach a proposed amended complaint to his motion. As a result, it is impossible to determine if

the proposed amendment is permissible. Therefore, it is

Case 1:11-cv-02721-MSK-KMT Document 80 Filed 08/03/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 79) is DENIED without prejudice. 

Dated this 3rd day of August, 2012.

Case 1:11-cv-02721-MSK-KMT Document 80 Filed 08/03/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3