United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
[DOC. 87]
CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In this
action alleging statutory violations for termination of
previously awarded federal hazard mitigation funds for his
residence in Westport, Connecticut, pro se Plaintiff
Arkady Sardarian has now submitted a motion to amend his
Complaint without attaching a proposed amended complaint or a
memorandum of law. See Doc. 87. Plaintiff states in
his motion that he is waiting to file his proposed amended
complaint until "after Connecticut State
Defendants file their Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition
[Doc. 42] to [their] Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 41]."
See Doc. 87, at 1 (emphasis in original).
There
are currently three pending motions to dismiss [Doc. 41, 62,
and 64], which the Plaintiff would like to be ripe for the
Court's adjudication before he drafts his amended
complaint. The other defendants in the action have
"recently filed their respective Replies [on] January 3,
2020 and January 10, 2020," to their own motions to
dismiss [Doc. 62 & 64]. Id. However, the state
defendants, who have recently been reinstated as parties in
the action after their defaults were set aside, have yet to
reply to Plaintiff's opposition [Doc. 42] to their motion
to dismiss [Doc. 41].[1]Under these circumstances, Plaintiff argues
that he needs time to incorporate "all alleged
deficiencies and other necessary changes to the
Complaint." Doc. 87, at 1.
The
Court cannot consider the substance of Plaintiff's motion
to amend his Complaint because Plaintiff has not complied
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are binding
upon pro se litigants. "To obtain leave of
court to amend the complaint, a party should file both a Rule
15 motion and a proposed amendment or new pleading."
Gulley v. Dzurenda, 264 F.R.D. 34, 36 (D. Conn.
2010). See also El-Massri v. New Haven Corr. Ctr.,
No. 3:18-CV-1249 (CSH), 2019 WL 2006001, at *3 (D. Conn. May
7, 2019) ("If one seeks amendment of a pleading, one
must affix a copy of the proposed amended pleading to his
Rule 15 motion. . . . [F]ailure to attach the proposed
amendment my prevent the Court from determining whether leave
is proper under the Foman standard.");
Chylinski v. Martin Rosol's Inc., No.
3:08-CV-1231 (RNC) (DFM), 2010 WL 2794198, at *1 n.2 (D.
Conn. June 23, 2010) (Where "no proposed amended
complaint was attached," the court "instructed
plaintiff that he must draft an amended complaint which
includes the changes he wishes to make, sign it, and file the
entire proposed Amended Complaint as an exhibit to his motion
to amend.) (internal quotation marks omitted), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 3:08-CV-1231 (RNC), 2010 WL
2794101 (D. Conn. July 14, 2010); Broga v. Northeast
Utilities, No. 96-CV-2114 (DJS), 1999 WL 33483581, at *6
(D. Conn. Aug. 19, 1999) ("Common sense dictates that a
party requesting leave to file an amended pleading must
accompany his motion with a copy of the proposed amended
complaint that complies with the general rules of pleading in
FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 8(a). This is necessary so that the
court and the adverse party will know the precise nature of
the pleading changes being proposed.")(citation and
internal quotations marks omitted). See also
generally 3 JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE'S FEDERAL
PRACTICE ¶¶ 15, 17[1] (3d ed. 2004).
Here,
as in Gulley, the Court "den[ies] leave to
amend on the grounds that the court cannot evaluate the
propriety of granting leave unless the court has had an
opportunity to review the substance of the proposed
amendment," 264 F.R.D. at 36 (internal citation
omitted). Moreover, the defendants cannot respond properly
until they have access to the text of the proposed amended
complaint.
Plaintiff
is reminded that, pursuant to Local Rule 7, "any motion
involving disputed issues of law shall be accompanied by a
memorandum or law," D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(a). Moreover,
although he is not represented by counsel, it would assist
the Court if, pursuant to Local Rule 7(f), Plaintiff were to
file "a redlined version of the proposed amended
pleading showing the changes proposed against the current
pleading and a clean version of the proposed amended
pleading," id. 7(f). The redlined version would
clarify the proposed amended text for the Court's
consideration.
CONCLUSION
For the
foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's present "Motion to
Amend" [Doc. 87] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. He may
refile his motion provided he includes the appropriate
documents (proposed amended complaint and legal memorandum)
with his submission. For that purpose, he is referred in
particular to Federal Rule 15 and Local Rule 7(f) of Civil
Procedure, as well this District's "Notice to
Self-Represented Litigants Regarding Motions to
Dismiss," D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 12, at ¶
3.[2]
It is
SO ORDERED.
---------
Notes:
[1] These self-styled "state
defendants" include: Connecticut Department of Emergency
Services and Public Protection ("DESPP"), William
J. Hackett, Gemma Fabris, and Ken Dumais.
[2] Paragraph 3 of that Notice provides,
in relevant part:
If you would like to amend your complaint under Rule
15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to
respond to the alleged deficiencies in your complaint
asserted by the defendant [in a motion to dismiss], you may
promptly file a motion to amend your complaint, but you
m ...