Palmer v. Woodford et al

Filing 102

ORDER Denying 101 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 04/05/2012. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

WILL MOSES PALMER, III,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

v.
(ECF No. 101)

12
13

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,
Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Will Moses, Palmer, III (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

16

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on April 28, 2006, and is

17

proceeding on the first amended complaint, filed August 29, 2007, against Defendants Jordnt and

18

Bardonnex for retaliation and denial of access to the court in violation of the First Amendment. On

19

August 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to allege claims

20

against two additional defendants, Munoz and Lopez.

21

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s

22

pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise,

23

a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave

24

shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and

25

leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires.’” Amerisource Bergen Corp. v.

26

Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However,

27

courts “need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2)

28

is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id. The factor
1

1

of “‘[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.’” Owens v.

2

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712,13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade,

3

198 F.3d 752, 757-58 (9th Cir. 1999)).

4

Plaintiff did not submit a second amended complaint or supply sufficient information for the

5

Court to determine if leave to amend would prejudice the opposing party; is being sought in bad

6

faith; would produce an undue delay in the litigation; or would be futile. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

7

motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is HEREBY DENIED.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k

April 5, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2