Burris v. Pinal, County of

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Kevinn Burris,
Plaintiff,
v.
County of Pinal, et al.,
Defendant.
No. CV-26-01316-PHX-KML
ORDER
Plaintiff Kevinn Burris filed his original complaint on February 25, 2026. (Doc. 1.)
On March 30, 2026, Burris filed an amended complaint. That amendment was Burris’s one
amendment “as a matter of course.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). If Burris wishes to amend
in the future, he must obtain “the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Shortly after Burris filed his amended complaint, defendant filed
a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 9.) Because that motion was aimed at the original complaint,
the court denied it and directed defendant to respond to the amended complaint. (Doc. 10.)
Seemingly unaware the court had denied the motion to dismiss, Burris filed an opposition
to it. The opposition included a request for leave to amend, phrased as though Burris was
only requesting leave to amend if the motion to dismiss were granted. (Doc. 11 at 4.)
According to the portion of Burris’s filing seeking leave to amend, he wishes to
“[a]dd appropriate defendants,” “clarify claims and supporting facts,” and “[i]nclude
additional damages.” (Doc. 11 at 4.) Local Rule 15.1(a) requires a plaintiff hoping to
amend his complaint to attach to the motion “a copy of the proposed amended [complaint]”
Case 2:26-cv-01316-KML Document 12 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that “indicate[s] in what respect it differs from the pleading which it amends, by bracketing
or striking through the text to be deleted and underlining the text to be added.” It is not
clear based on the filing whether Burris intended to file a motion to amend if the motion to
dismiss was denied, as it had been. If Burris had complied with the local rule in connection
with his pending motion to amend, it might have been possible to determine what relief he
was seeking. But he did not.
Although Burris is proceeding pro se, he still “must follow the same rules of
procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987),
overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012).
Therefore, his request to amend is denied. Any future motion to amend must be
accompanied by the appropriate proposed amended complaint.
In addition, Burris’s filings resemble others that have been identified as created
using artificial intelligence. The lack of clarity in the motion Burris filed may well be due
to that usage. The court’s February 27, 2026, order set out requirements for litigants using
artificial intelligence. (Doc. 6 at 2-3.) To the extent Burris is using artificial intelligence,
he must comply with the procedures outlined in that order. If Burris does not comply with
the court’s orders or the local rules, he may face sanctions up to and including the dismissal
of his complaint.
IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 11) is DENIED.
Dated this 6th day of April, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-01316-KML Document 12 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 2