Glass v. Featherly

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided March 29, 2023·No. 3:22-cv-00280·Unknown

Opinion

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

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

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND TO ADD A PLAINTIFF 6 v. [ECF Nos. 19, 20] 7 FEATHERLY, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 Before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Glass’s (“Glass”) motion for leave to file an 10 amended complaint, (ECF No. 19), and a motion to add a Plaintiff (ECF No. 20), which 11 are identical documents. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies the motions. 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) allows a party to amend its pleading once 13 as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to 14 which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading. 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) further instructs that “[i]n all other cases, a party may amend its 16 pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court 17 should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires,” and there is a 18 strong public policy in favor of permitting amendment. Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 19 757 (9th Cir. 1999). Further, LR 15-1 requires a party to attach proposed amended 20 pleadings to a motion seeking leave of court to file an amended pleading. 21 Here, Glass filed a motion for leave to amend, but did not attach his proposed 22 amended pleading. Accordingly, the Court denies Glass’s motion, (ECF No. 19), for his 23 failure to follow LR 15-1. 24 Additionally, to the extent Glass is attempting to add another inmate Plaintiff to his 25 case, he is advised that while pro se litigants have the right to plead and conduct their 26 own cases personally, pro se litigants do not have authority to represent anyone other 27 than themselves. See Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) representative capacity). 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Glass’s motion for leave to file an amended 3 | complaint and motion to add a Plaintiff, (ECF No. 19, 20), are DENIED. 4 DATED: March 29, 2023 | ‘ 5 aero 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Glass v. Featherly, (D. Nev. 2023).

Glass v. Featherly (Glass v. Featherly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc.
546 F.3d 661 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Bowles v. Reade
198 F.3d 752 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)