Filed: Jan. 06, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 06, 2012
Summary: ORDER KRISTEN L. MIX, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint [Docket No. 249; Filed January 5, 2012] (the "Motion"). For the Case 1:10-cv-02862-REB-KLM Document 252 Filed 01/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3 reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion. On October 19, 2011, the District Judge issued an Order Adopting in Part and Rejecting in Part Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#229] in co
Summary: ORDER KRISTEN L. MIX, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint [Docket No. 249; Filed January 5, 2012] (the "Motion"). For the Case 1:10-cv-02862-REB-KLM Document 252 Filed 01/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3 reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion. On October 19, 2011, the District Judge issued an Order Adopting in Part and Rejecting in Part Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#229] in con..
More
ORDER
KRISTEN L. MIX, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint [Docket No. 249; Filed January 5, 2012] (the "Motion"). For the Case 1:10-cv-02862-REB-KLM Document 252 Filed 01/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3 reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
On October 19, 2011, the District Judge issued an Order Adopting in Part and Rejecting in Part Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#229] in connection with a number of Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants in this matter. As part of the Order [#229], the District Judge permitted Plaintiff to file a Third Amended Complaint no later than November 15, 2011. See Order [#229] at 10. The District Judge also ordered that any third amended complaint filed by Plaintiff must comply with a number of listed conditions. See id. at 10-11. He further warned Plaintiff that any third amended complaint filed by Plaintiff that did not so comply would be stricken and that sanctions could be imposed, including dismissal of this case. See id. at 11-12.
On November 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint [#236], which included a copy of his proposed Third Amended Complaint. That same day, the District Judge issued another Order [#235] in response to Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification [#234]. In the Order, the District Judge amended some of the conditions set forth in his previous Order [#229]. On December 21, 2011, the Court denied, without prejudice, the Motion for Leave [#236] for failure to comply in full with the Orders. Plaintiff filed the present Motion [#249] on January 5, 2011. Thus, the Court compares the proffered Third Amended Complaint [#249-1] with the requirements set forth by the District Judge in both Orders [#229, #235].
Upon comparison of the Third Amended Complaint [#249-1] and Orders [#229, #235], the Court finds that Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint appears to comply with the District Judge's requirements. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#249] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall accept Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint [#249-1] for filing as of the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Third Amended Complaint on or before February 6, 2012.
Dean Carbajal Plaintiff, Pro se.
