Tyrone William Mahan v. Advance Correctional Healthcare, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

TYRONE WILLIAM MAHAN, Case No. 25-cv-12453 Plaintiff, Honorable Terrence G. Berg Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford v.

ADVANCE CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 8)

Plaintiff Tyrone William Mahan, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against twelve defendants for alleged constitutional and statutory violations arising from his confinement at the Genesee County Jail. ECF No. 1. The Honorable Terrence G. Berg referred the case to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 7. Mahan moves to amend his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) to add new defendants. ECF No. 8. Under the Court’s local rules, A party who moves to amend a pleading shall attach the proposed amended pleading to the motion. Any amendment to a pleading, whether filed as a matter of course or upon a motion to amend, must…reproduce the entire pleading as amended, and may not incorporate any prior pleading by reference. E.D. Mich. LR 15.1. Mahan did not attach a proposed amended complaint to his motion. Although failure to comply with Local Rule 15.1 “is not grounds for denial of the motion,” denial without prejudice is permitted. See Rosas v. Mich. Dept. of Health & Human Servs., No. 1:24-cv-11400, 2024 WL 3448449, at *2 (E.D. Mich. July 16, 2024). If Mahan files an amended complaint or seeks leave to do so, he must submit “a proposed complaint that contains all of his allegations,

realleging any facts from his original complaint he does not wish to amend. This proposed complaint will supersede and nullify all of [his] original complaint if accepted.” Id. Thus, Mahan’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: January 12, 2026 NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS

Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. “When an objection is filed to a

magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.2. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on January 12, 2026.

s/Davon Allen DAVON ALLEN Case Manager