United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Eileen
S. Willett United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff
David Marmolejo, who is confined by the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, in the C.T. Terrell Unit, in Rosharon,
Texas, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). The Court ordered Defendants
Alverez and CS105 to answer the threat to safety claim in
Count I of the Complaint and dismissed Count II and Defendant
Penzone without prejudice. (Doc. 7 at 10). Defendants
answered the Complaint. (Doc. 12).
On
April 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed a document entitled
“Civil Right's [sic] Complaint by a Prisoner”
which the Court construes as a motion to amend the Complaint
and proposed Amended Complaint. (Doc. 9). Plaintiff also
filed a “Reply to Defendants Answer With Leave.”
(Doc. 15). The Court will strike Plaintiff's Reply as an
unauthorized filing. The Court will deny without prejudice
Plaintiff's motion to amend his Complaint and strike the
proposed Amended Complaint.
I.
DISCUSSION
A.
“Civil Right's [sic] Complaint by a Prisoner”
(Doc. 9)
“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.
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 proposed Amended Complaint (Doc. 9) does not
indicate in what respect it 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 proposed Amended Complaint (Doc. 9) therefore
fails to comply with Local Rule 15.1(a), LRCiv.
Plaintiff's failure to comply with Local Rule 15.1(a)
hinders the Court's ability to compare the Complaint and
Amended Complaints. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for
leave to file an Amended Complaint (Doc. 9) will be denied
without prejudice.[1] The proposed Amended Complaint (Doc. 9)
shall be stricken. Plaintiff may refile a Motion for Leave to
Amend his Complaint and proposed Amended Complaint that
complies with Local Rule 15.1(a), LRCiv.
B.
“Reply to Defendants Answer With Leave.” (Doc.
15)
Plaintiff
has responded to Defendants' Answer by filing a reply.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not authorize the
filing of a reply to Defendants' Answer. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 (a) (specifically delineating pleadings
that a party may file); LRCiv 7.2 (m) (stating that the Court
may strike a pleading that is not authorized by rule,
statute, or court order). Because Plaintiffs Reply is an
unauthorized pleading, the Court will strike it.
II.
CONCLUSION
For the
reasons set forth herein, IT IS ORDERED
denying without prejudice Plaintiffs “Civil Right's
[sic] Complaint by a Prisoner” which the Court
construes as a motion to amend the Complaint. (Doc. 9). The
proposed ...