Smith v. Snohomish County

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA TROY SMITH, Case No. 2:24-cv-00288-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 8 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SNOHOMISH COUNTY , et al., SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 9 (DKT. 33) Defendants.

11 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Dkt. 33. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se1. Defendants did not respond to plaintiff’s motion.

14 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) 15(a), “[a] party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.” Otherwise, the party “may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party.” Leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires,” and “this policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Id.; Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). After a responsive pleading has been filed, “leave to amend should be granted unless amendment would cause prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew from the case on October 15, 2024. Dkt. 32.

1 is futile, or creates undue delay.” Martinez v. Newport Beach City, 125 F.3d 777, 786 (9th Cir. 1997).

3 Although leave to amend under this rule is generally freely given, it is important that a plaintiff comply with Local Civil Rule (“LCR”) 15. Under LCR 15, when a party moves to amend a pleading, they must: 6 Attach a copy of the proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion or stipulated motion. The party must indicate on the proposed amended pleading how it differs from the pleading that it amends by bracketing or striking through the text to be deleted and underlining or highlighting the text to be added. The proposed amended pleading must 9 not incorporate by reference any part of the preceding pleading, including exhibits.

In this case, plaintiff did not fully comply with LCR 15. Although he attached a copy of his proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion (see Dkt. 33-1), plaintiff's pleading is deficient because the proposed second amended complaint does not adequately identify the differences with the amended complaint (Dkt. 21). Short of comparing every word in those paragraphs to those in the amended complaint, the Court cannot identify the specific differences. This requirement facilitates the Court’s ability to ascertain the causes of action and amendments that are proposed, to determine whether the amendments would or would not be futile. See Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ'g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008).

1 Therefore, the Court denies plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint without prejudice. This means plaintiff may refile the motion if he complies with Local Civil Rule 15 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.

6 Dated this 22nd day of November, 2024.

A Theresa L. Fricke 10 United States Magistrate Judge