ORDER

LEE H. ROSENTHAL, District Judge.

On April 25, 2013, petitioner Dongsheng Huang moved for leave to amend his complaint under Rule 15(a)(2). (Docket Entry No. 48). Huang did not attach a copy of his proposed amended complaint. The respondents, the Administrative Review Board of the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Secretary of Labor, opposed Huang's motion, in part on the basis of futility and in part because Huang had not attached his proposed amended complaint. (Docket Entry No. 54). Huang replied that his proposed amendments were not futile and represented that he would file his proposed amended complaint if this court ordered him to do so. (Docket Entry No. 55).1

Opposition based on failure to include a proposed amended complaint and on futility are somewhat interrelated. See, e.g., Sonia Vou Books, LLC v. BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, 2011 WL 3438435, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2011) (explaining that without the ability to review the proposed amended complaint, "`it leaves a district court to speculate as to how . . . seemingly redundant facts might amount to a legal claim,' lending weight to an inference that granting leave to amend is a futile exercise" (alteration in original)). This court finds that it cannot rule on the motion for leave to amend without reviewing Huang's proposed amended complaint, and Huang has represented that he can "easily" provide his proposed amended complaint to this court. (See Docket Entry No. 55, at 3). Accordingly, Huang must file his proposed amended complaint by June 7, 2013.