Glass v. Featherly

Opinion

* * *

MICHAEL GLASS, Case No. 3:22-CV-00280-ART-CLB

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND TO ADD A PLAINTIFF v. [ECF Nos. 19, 20] FEATHERLY, et al.,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Glass’s (“Glass”) motion for leave to file an amended complaint, (ECF No. 19), and a motion to add a Plaintiff (ECF No. 20), which are identical documents. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies the motions. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) allows a party to amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) further instructs that “[i]n all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires,” and there is a strong public policy in favor of permitting amendment. Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir. 1999). Further, LR 15-1 requires a party to attach proposed amended pleadings to a motion seeking leave of court to file an amended pleading. Here, Glass filed a motion for leave to amend, but did not attach his proposed amended pleading. Accordingly, the Court denies Glass’s motion, (ECF No. 19), for his failure to follow LR 15-1. Additionally, to the extent Glass is attempting to add another inmate Plaintiff to his case, he is advised that while pro se litigants have the right to plead and conduct their own cases personally, pro se litigants do not have authority to represent anyone other than themselves. See Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) representative capacity). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Glass’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint and motion to add a Plaintiff, (ECF No. 19, 20), are DENIED. DATED: March 29, 2023 | ‘ aero