Emanuel v. Collins

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 23, 2023
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00566
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 TROY EMANUEL, JR., Case No. 3:20-CV-00566-RCJ-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING MOTION 6 v. FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT 7 COLLINS, et al., [ECF Nos. 112, 113] 8 Defendants.

9 On June 21, 2023, Plaintiff Troy Emanuel’s (“Emanuel”) filed a first amended 10 complaint without filing a motion to amend and without leave of court. (ECF No. 112.) The 11 following day, Emanuel filed a motion for leave to file a first supplemental civil rights 12 complaint. (ECF No. 113.) For the reasons discussed below, the first amended complaint, 13 (ECF No. 112), is stricken, and the motion for leave to supplement, (ECF No. 113), is 14 denied. 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) allows a party to amend its pleading once 16 as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to 17 which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading. 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) further instructs that “[i]n all other cases, a party may amend its 19 pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court 20 should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires,” and there is a 21 strong public policy in favor of permitting amendment. Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 22 757 (9th Cir. 1999). Further, LR 15-1 requires a party to attach proposed amended 23 pleadings to a motion seeking leave of court to file an amended pleading. Finally, LR 7- 24 2(d) states the failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in support of a motion 25 constitutes a consent to the denial of the motion. 26 Here, Emanuel filed his proposed amended complaint without leave and without 27 an accompanying motion or points and authorities in support of his proposed first 1 complaint, (ECF No. 112), is STRICKEN, for the failure to follow Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, LR 2) 15-1, and LR 7-2(d).' 3 Next, because it appears Emanuel’s motion for leave to file a first supplemental 4} civil rights complaint, (ECF No. 113), is falsely premised on the assumption that the first 5 | amended complaint was the operative complaint, the motion, (ECF No. 113), is DENIED. 6 Finally, counsel for Emanuel is reminded of their obligation to follow the Rules of 7 | Civil Procedure, the Local Rules for the District of Nevada, and all court orders when 8 | representing an individual in a civil rights case. The purpose of pro bono appointments is to aid the Plaintiff and the Court in streamlining the litigation—not to clog the docket with improper filings. Any additional failures to follow the rules or file documents that are not supported by the rules and law applicable to civil rights actions will result in sanctions. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 DATED: June 23, 2023 ‘

14 UNITED\STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 The Court also notes that the proposed amended complaint does not comply with 24| Fed. R. Civ. P. 10, which requires a party to state their claims in “numbered paragraphs to a single set of circumstances.” Although there are numbered paragraphs to some 25| items, many of the paragraphs contain various facts in one paragraph. For example, in Paragraph 13, Emanuel lists ALL supporting facts for his excessive force claim. (ECF No. 26 | 112 at4.). This single paragraph spans almost an entire page. (/d.) This is improper. Each individual fact related to this claim should be stated separately to allow Defendants to o7 provide proper answer to each alleged fact. Should Emanuel choose to file a motion to amend the complaint, any proposed amended complaint must comply with Rule 10. 28