Filed: Feb. 13, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 13, 2019
Summary: ORDER EILEEN S. WILLETT , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Anthony Michael Koch, who is confined in the Mohave County Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Doc. 1). The Court ordered Defendants Jacobs and Tribolet to answer Count One of the Complaint and dismissed Defendant Lake Havasu City Police Department and the remaining claims (Doc. 5). Defendants Jacobs and Tribolet filed their Answer (Doc. 13), and all issues are joined. On August 7, 2018, the Cou
Summary: ORDER EILEEN S. WILLETT , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Anthony Michael Koch, who is confined in the Mohave County Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Doc. 1). The Court ordered Defendants Jacobs and Tribolet to answer Count One of the Complaint and dismissed Defendant Lake Havasu City Police Department and the remaining claims (Doc. 5). Defendants Jacobs and Tribolet filed their Answer (Doc. 13), and all issues are joined. On August 7, 2018, the Cour..
More
ORDER
EILEEN S. WILLETT, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Anthony Michael Koch, who is confined in the Mohave County Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). The Court ordered Defendants Jacobs and Tribolet to answer Count One of the Complaint and dismissed Defendant Lake Havasu City Police Department and the remaining claims (Doc. 5). Defendants Jacobs and Tribolet filed their Answer (Doc. 13), and all issues are joined. On August 7, 2018, the Court issued its Scheduling Order which required that all motions to amend the Complaint be filed no later than October 4, 2018 (Doc. 14 at 4). On February 6, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 31). No motion accompanies the First Amended Complaint. Nor does the First Amended Complaint set forth by underline, brackets, or strike how it differs from the original Complaint.
"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 First Amended Complaint is not accompanied by a motion requesting leave to file an amended complaint and demonstrating good cause for the late filing. Plaintiff does not indicate in what respect his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 31) 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 First Amended Complaint (Doc. 31) therefore fails to comply with LRCiv 15.1(a). Even if the Court were to find good cause for Plaintiff's late filing, Plaintiff's failure to comply with Local Rule 15.1(a) hinders the Court's ability to compare the Complaint and First Amended Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint shall be stricken. LRCiv 7.2(m) (allowing the Court to strike a pleading that is unauthorized by statute, rule, or court order). If Plaintiff can establish good cause to allow the late filing, Plaintiff may refile a Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint and proposed First Amended Complaint that complies with LRCiv 15.1(a).
For the reasons set forth herein,
IT IS ORDERED striking Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Doc. 31).
