United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
H. PAYNE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court are Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, his
motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 26), and his motion
for preliminary injunction (Dkt. 27).
29, 2019, Plaintiff submitted an amended civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming Terry
Underwood, Grievance Coordinator, as an additional defendant
and complaining about Underwood's responses to
Plaintiff's grievances. Plaintiff did not submit a motion
for leave to file an amended complaint, as required by Local
Civil Rule 9.2(c). In addition, Plaintiff improperly
submitted documents with writing on both sides of the paper,
in violation of Local Civil Rule 5.2(a).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set forth the requirements
for filing an amended pleading:
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its
pleading once as a matter of course within:
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is
required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or
21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or
(f), whichever is earlier.
(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend
its pleading only with the opposing party's written
consent or the court's leave. The court should freely
give leave when justice so requires.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint fails to comply
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this
Court's Local Civil Rules. The Court notes that to the
extent the proposed amended complaint is an attempt to raise
a claim that Underwood denied his grievances, “a denial
of a grievance, by itself without any connection to the
violation of constitutional rights alleged by the plaintiff,
does not establish personal participation under §
1983.” Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063,
1069 (10th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). See Henry v.
Storey, 658 F.3d 1235, 1241 (10th Cir. 2011)
(“[P]ersonal participation in the specific
constitutional violation complained of is essential.”).
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Federal and Local
Civil Rules, the Court directs the Court Clerk to return the
proposed amended complaint unfiled.
for Appointment of Counsel
has filed a motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 26). He
bears the burden of convincing the Court that his claim has
sufficient merit to warrant such appointment. McCarthy v.
Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985) (citing
United States v. Masters, 484 F.2d 1251, 1253 (10th
Cir. 1973)). The Court has carefully reviewed the merits of
Plaintiff's claims, the nature of factual issues raised
in his allegations, and his ability to investigate crucial
facts. McCarthy, 753 F.2d at 838 (citing Maclin
v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887-88 (7th Cir. 1981)). After
considering Plaintiff's ability to present his claims and
the complexity of the legal issues raised by the claims, ...