United States District Court, D. Arizona
April 1, 2015
Kenneth W. Reed, Plaintiffs,
Karen Barcklay, et al., Defendants.
JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Karen Barcklay's Motion for Clarification of the Court's December 17, 2014 Order. (Doc. 365). Plaintiff did not respond to the motion. Specifically, Defendant requests clarification of the following paragraph:
Plaintiff may amend his complaint for injunctive relief to name the correct officials at ASPC-Tucson who he contends are currently responsible for denying his medical treatment. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (instructing that the prisoner "be given an opportunity to amend his complaint" because the prisoner "could cure the deficiencies in his complaint by naming the correct defendants.").
Reed v. Barcklay, 2014 WL 7178363, at *4 (D. Ariz. Dec. 17, 2014). In her Motion for Clarification, Defendant states:
The foregoing paragraph gives the impression that the Court has sua sponte granted Reed leave to "amend his complaint for injunctive relief to name the correct officials at ASPC-Tucson who he contends are currently responsible for denying his medical treatment" even though he has never sought leave to amend, and Dr. Barcklay has never had an opportunity to respond to such a motion.
(Doc. 365 at 1-2). To the extent Defendant asserts that the Court has sua sponte "granted" Plaintiff leave to amend, the Court did not "grant" Plaintiff such leave. Rather, the Court simply observed that Plaintiff "may" be able to amend his complaint in order to name the "correct officials." Of course, in order to make such an amendment, Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, must properly follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rules"). Accordingly, in order to amend his pleading Plaintiff must file a motion for leave that adequately shows "justice... requires" an amendment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).
IT IS ORDERED Defendant's Motion for Clarification (Doc. 365) is GRANTED consistent with the above.