Francis v. Collins

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Khori Francis, No. CV-25-01009-PHX-KML 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Doug Collins, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Khori Francis filed his original complaint on March 27, 2025. The following day Francis filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 5.) The parties then agreed Francis could file his second amended complaint. (Doc. 19.) On June 9, 2025, Francis filed a third amended complaint. That complaint was not accompanied by an indication defendants had agreed to the filing. Having already amended as a matter of course, Francis was not permitted to amend his complaint again absent “the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). To prevent additional delay, the court will deem the third amended complaint properly filed. In the future, Francis must take greater care to comply with all procedural requirements. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 24 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (pro se litigants “must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”).

27 / / 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 23) is deemed properly filed.

4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Allow Electronic Filing (Doc. 24) is 5|| DENIED.

6 Dated this 11th day of June, 2025.

9 WW plo MM. LAA Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 10 United States District Judge _2-