1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

PHILIP E. HAHN,

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et 

al.

 

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 

11-1874-ES-SCM

OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court by way of various 

informal applications to amend the complaint filed by pro se

Plaintiff Philip E. Hahn. (See Docket Entries (“D.E.”) 132, 

161, 182, 195, and 204). For the reasons set forth below, 

Plaintiff’s requests for leave to amend are DENIED.

II. BACKGROUND

A detailed background of this matter may be found in the 

December 17, 2012, Opinion [D.E. 187] of the Honorable Esther 

Salas, U.S.D.J. In essence, “[t]he instant matter stems from 

the dismissal of several state court actions, and Plaintiff’s 

recalcitrant efforts to litigate against all persons involved in 

those actions.” Id. This Court has granted fourteen (14) 

motions to dismiss involving a colorful array of defendants, 

Case 2:11-cv-01874-DRD-MCA Document 245 Filed 05/08/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 3493
2

including law firms, pharmaceutical companies, and Supreme Court 

justices. 

Plaintiff has filed five (5) informal applications to add 

the following parties: The Honorable Ester [sic] Salas; New 

Jersey Deputy Attorney General Debra-Shane Held; Matthew 

Blackman, Esq.; Ruprecht, Hart and Weeks; Vasios, Kelly and 

Strollo; the Honorable De Lorenzo; the Honorable O’Halloran; 

Post, Polak, Goodsell, MacNeill & Strauchler; Ahmuty, Demers & 

McManus; Bogart, Keane and Ryan; the Honorable Kennedy; the 

Honorable Espinosa; the Honorable Dorothea O’C Wefing; the 

Honorable Parrillo; the Honorable Yannotti; the Honorable Cuff; 

the Honorable Fasciale; the United States of America; the United 

States Air Force; the state of Pennsylvania; the Pennsylvania 

Air National Guard; the State of New Jersey; the New Jersey Air 

National Guard; the Appellate Court of New Jersey; the Bergen 

Superior Court; Judge Nugent; Judge Fuentes; Judge Ashrafi; 

Judge Polifroni; Debra M. Marcus; Stephen E. Schechter; Ms. 

Gefaell; the Law Office of Stephen H. Schechner; the Honorable 

Espinosa; the Honorable Skillman; and Joseph Orlando.

Case 2:11-cv-01874-DRD-MCA Document 245 Filed 05/08/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 3494
3

III. DISCUSSION

New Jersey L. Civ. R. 7.1 states:

(f) Motions Regarding Additional Pleadings

Upon filing a motion for leave to file an 

amended complaint or answer, a complaint in 

intervention or other pleading requiring 

leave of Court, the moving party shall 

attach to the motion a copy of the proposed 

pleading or amendments and retain the 

original until the Court has ruled. If 

leave to file is granted, the moving party 

shall file the original forthwith.

L. Civ. R. 7.1(f). “The purpose of Local Rule 7.1(f) is to give 

the Court and the parties a chance to evaluate the sufficiency 

of the proposed pleading.” Folkman v. Roster Financial, 2005 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18117 (D.N.J. 2005); see also U.F.C.W. Local 56 

v. J.D.’s Market, 240 F.R.D. 149, 150 (D.N.J. 2007) (stating 

that one of the “cardinal rules” for a party seeking leave to 

amend a pleading is that a copy of the proposed amended pleading 

be attached to the motion). Failure to include a proposed 

amended complaint is a basis for dismissal of a Plaintiff’s 

motion to amend his complaint. See, e.g., Tucker v. Wynne, 2009 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69546 (D.N.J. 2009); Warren v. Gelardi, 2009 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2333 (D.N.J. 2009); Parker v. Howmedica 

Osteonics Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2570 (D.N.J. 2008); Trans 

World Techs. V. Raytheon Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82118 

(D.N.J. 2007). 

Case 2:11-cv-01874-DRD-MCA Document 245 Filed 05/08/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 3495
4

Here, Plaintiff has not submitted a copy of a proposed 

amended pleading with any of his applications to amend his 

complaint. Plaintiff’s failure to provide a copy of his 

proposed amended complaint, in and of itself, supports denying 

his requests to amend. See Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d 360, 374 

(3d Cir. 2000) (holding that even where the district court 

failed to provide a reason for its denial of plaintiffs’ motion 

to amend the complaint, the court had not abused its power in 

denying the motion because plaintiffs’ “failure to provide a 

draft amended complaint would be an adequate basis on which the 

court could deny the [plaintiffs’] request”). Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s requests to amend his complaint are hereby denied.

IV. CONCLUSION

This matter, having come before the Court on the applications 

of Plaintiff to amend his complaint; and the Court having 

considered same; and for good cause shown,

IT IS ON THIS 3rd day of May, 2013:

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s applications to amend his 

complaint are hereby DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall not file any further 

applications to amend his complaint without first requesting 

Case 2:11-cv-01874-DRD-MCA Document 245 Filed 05/08/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 3496
5

leave from this Court by way of written letter. Failure to 

abide by this Order may result in sanctions.

 

5/7/2013 9:59:59 AM

Date: May 7, 2013

Case 2:11-cv-01874-DRD-MCA Document 245 Filed 05/08/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 3497