United States District Court, D. Arizona
S. Willett United States Magistrate Judge.
before the Court are a number of motions filed by Plaintiff.
The Court has reviewed the Motions and issues its rulings as
set forth below.
Plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend Complaint”
January 2016, Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to name
additional defendants. (Doc. 34). Plaintiff lodged a proposed
First Amended Complaint, but did not comply with Rule 15.1 of
the Local Rules of Civil Procedure (“LRCiv”) by
indicating in what respect it differs from the original
Complaint (i.e. by bracketing or striking through the text to
be deleted and underlining the text to be added). The First
Amended Complaint also contained illegible text in violation
of LRCiv 5.4. The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc.
34) for failure to comply with Local Rules of Civil Procedure
and extended the deadline for filing a second motion to amend
to March 24, 2016. (Doc. 44).
March 25, 2016, the Clerk of Court docketed Plaintiff’s
“Motion to Amend Complaint.” Although the Motion
does not contain a certificate of service indicating when
Plaintiff mailed it to the Court,  because the Motion was
docketed on March 25, 2016, the Court presumes it was mailed
on March 24, 2016 at the latest. The Court deems the Motion
Plaintiff has Complied with LRCiv 15.1
argue that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 46) fails
to comply with LRCiv 15.1, resulting in confusion as to what
comprises Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended Complaint.
(Doc. 48 at 3). The Court finds that Defendants’
argument rests on a misconstruction of Plaintiff’s
Motion. Plaintiff’s Motion explains that the original
Complaint is attached as an exhibit and that Plaintiff has
bracketed the language that is to be deleted and replaced
with the underlined text set forth in Pages 3-5 of the
Motion.For instance, regarding Defendant
Pratt’s place of employment in Section B of the
Complaint, Plaintiff bracketed “Corizon”:
1. Name of first Defendant: Charlse [sic] Ryan. The first
Defendant is employed as: ADOC Director (Position and Title)
at ADOC (Institution)
2. Name of first Defendant: Richard Pratt . The first
Defendant is employed as: A Director (Position and Title) at
3. Name of first Defendant: ___. The first Defendant is
employed as: ____ (Position and Title) at ___. (Institution)
4. Name of first Defendant: ___. The first Defendant is
employed as: ___ (Position and Title) at ___. (Institution)
(Doc. 46 at 8).
3 of the Motion, Plaintiff identifies by underlined text the
language to be added to Section B of the Complaint. As shown
below, Plaintiff has indicated that “ADOC” is to
be listed as the institution at which Defendant Pratt is
employed (instead of “Corizon”). Plaintiff has
also identified by underlined text the additional defendants
to be included in Section B of the Complaint:
2. (Institution), (ADOC)
3. N. Maranzo, (NP) at Corizon
4. Steve Ibrahim, D.O. at Corizon additional ...