Brock v. The City of New York

Opinion

[ uspc spy UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: Mandela Brock, Plaintiff, 1:21-cv-11094 (AT) (SDA) -against- ORDER The City of New York et al., Defendants.

STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge: By Order, dated January 20, 2022 (see Am. Order of Ref., ECF No. 17), Plaintiff's letter, dated January 20, 2022, seeking to amend his complaint for a second time? (see Pl.’s 1/20/22 Ltr., ECF No. 15), was referred to the undersigned for disposition. In his January 20 letter, Plaintiff requests that “he be allowed to amend his filing, adding Avo Shopping Company to the instant action.” (See id.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s letter as a motion to amend, pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is a “general rule that a motion to amend must be accompanied by a proposed amended pleading.” See Taylor v. Trigeno, No. 16-CV-01143 (GHW), 2021 WL 6070444, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2021). A copy of the proposed amended complaint must accompany the motion so that the Court can understand the exact changes sought, see In re Crude Oil Commodity Litig., No. O6-CV- 06677 (NRB), 2007 WL 2589482, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2007), as well as the relief sought as to

Plaintiff already filed one amended complaint in this case. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 11.)

each of the defendants. Thus, if Plaintiff wishes to be granted leave to file another amended pleading, he shall file a proposed Second Amended Complaint no later than January 28, 2022. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York January 21, 2022

STEWART D. AARON United States Magistrate Judge