Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

. · ' Z
H F"‘E° ..._LODqp
1 .
2 JSN 6 ZDU5
3 ,., ,= €¥2§iI§.$.°”*
4 { DEPUTY
l
6 TN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 I FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ,
9 Carlos _ No. CIV 03-1819 PHX-JAT (LOA) 7 ‘_
10 Plaintiff] ORDER I
ll vs.
12 C. Miles, etal.,
I3 Defendants. i
14 )
15 This matter arises on Plaintiffs two Motions for Leave to- Supplement Complaint.
16 (document # 92, # 93). Plaintiff has not submitted a proposed Amended Complaint. The
17 Court, therefore, will deny Plaintiffs motion. See, LRCiv 15.1 (stating that a party seeking to
18 amend a pleading shall attach a copy ofthe proposed amended pleaditig.) Additionally, in this
_ A — - 19 motion, Plaintiffstates thatheseeks to aridallegationsrthratDefendants have deprived hi_n3_0f _ _ _ ,_
20 his personal property. These allegations are not related to the erigirial c0mp1ai11tise--‘**’*a*"““*7‘* (
21 Accordingly, ‘ l ,
22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs two Motions for Leave to Supplement
23 Complaint (document # 92, # 93) are DENIED.
24 DATED this #2;;} day of January, 2005. .
25 I
26 S @1WbL e
E; Ua1iZ-Sisiiiggigaéégeaigiiitage
Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT Document 188-3 Filed 06/30/2006 Page

Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT

Document 188-3

Filed 06/30/2006

Page 1 of 1