Benavides v. Town of Silver City

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

ROSIE MORELOS BENAVIDES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civ. No. 22-584 KRS/GBW

KEN LADNER, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint and Seek Other Consequential/Equitable Remedies. Doc. 7. Pursuant to District of New Mexico Local Rule 7.1(a), a party filing a motion must determine whether it is opposed, and “a motion that omits recitation of a good-faith request for concurrence may be summarily denied.” D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.1(a). Plaintiffs’ Motion does not indicate that Plaintiffs sought Defendants’ position.1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED without prejudice to its refiling in a form compliant with the Local Rules.

1 Although pro se litigants’ pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers, see Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991), “this court has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants,” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (brackets omitted) (quoting Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir.1994)). IT IS SO ORDERED. / je? a om" . CRE €O} Y B. WORMUTH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE