Lanier v. Fresno Unified School District Board Of Education et al

Filing 113

Order on Plaintiff's 97 Motion to Amend the Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 07/24/2013. (Figueroa, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 JAMES M. LANIER, 9 10 11 12 13 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ) ) Defendant. ) _____________________________________ ) 1: 09-cv-01779 -AWI-BAM ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT 14 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 This civil rights action arises out of pro se plaintiff James Lanier’s (“Plaintiff”) unsuccessful 18 attempt to secure a sports officiating contract from Fresno Unified School District (“Defendant”). 19 Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s refusal to grant Plaintiff the sports officiating contract was racially 20 motivated. The parties have litigated multiple motions to dismiss. (Doc. 32, 44, 47.) All that 21 remains of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is Plaintiff’s claim for race discrimination 22 under Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. (Doc. 47.) 23 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File A Second Amended 24 Complaint. (Doc. 97.) Defendant filed its opposition on May 17, 2013. (Doc. 98.) The Court 25 deemed the matter suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and 26 vacated the hearing scheduled for July 26, 2013. (Doc. 111.) Having carefully considered the 27 parties’ submissions and the entire record in this case, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to 28 Amend his First Amended Complaint. 1 1 2 II. DISCUSSION Plaintiff’s Motion is procedurally and substantively defective. Rule 137(c) of the Local 3 Rules for the U.S. District Court, Eastern District California, states in pertinent part that, “[i]f 4 filing a document requires leave of court, such as an amended complaint after the time to amend 5 as a matter of course has expired, counsel shall attach the document proposed to be filed as an 6 exhibit to the moving papers seeking such leave.” The Court has discretion to deny a motion to 7 amend for the failure to attach a proposed pleading as required by local rule. Waters v. 8 Weyerhaeuser Mortgage Co., 582 F.2d 503, 507 (9th Cir.1978). 9 Plaintiff has failed to attach a proposed amended complaint or otherwise describe the 10 proposed amendments. A court can not evaluate the propriety of a motion to amend a pleading 11 when the moving papers do not describe the proposed amendments or attach the proposed 12 amended pleading. See, U.S. v. Molen, No. 2: 10-cv-02591-MCE-KJN, 2011 WL 3678431 *2 13 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 22, 2011) (“Because defendants' requests were not accompanied by a draft 14 amended answer, the court cannot properly gauge the propriety of the request. Similarly, 15 defendants' moving papers fail to describe in any detail the sort(s) of amendment(s) defendants 16 wish to make to their Answer.”) (citations omitted). 17 Plaintiff states he is “in the final stages of his discovery” and, “due to this Court’s rulings 18 [granting Defendant’s Motion to Amend its Answer, see Doc. 93],” Plaintiff requests “leave to 19 amend his complaint and or submit an additional claim . . . [and to] amend his complaint so that 20 he may add and cite legal authority. . . .” (Doc. 97, 2: 1-24.) These vague assertions do not 21 justify Plaintiff’s request to amend his First Amended Complaint. 22 First, Plaintiff does not explain how the Court’s ruling permitting Defendant amend its 23 Answer to assert statute of limitations and res judicata affirmative defenses would necessitate an 24 amended complaint. Presumably, Plaintiff has been aware of any parallel litigation in which he 25 is currently involved. Additionally, Defendant’s statute of limitations defense has long been an 26 at issue in this case. See, Doc. 35, 36, 39, 40, 44, 47. 27 Second, Plaintiff does not provide any information about the specific amendments 28 sought. Specifically, Plaintiff does not articulate what “claims” or “legal authority” he intends to 2 1 incorporate into his pleading. Without this information, the Court has no basis on which to 2 evaluate Plaintiff’s request. 3 Generally, Courts are required to take an “extreme[ly] liberal[]” approach towards 4 motions to amend pleadings. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th 5 Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Moreover, the Court recognizes that the pleadings and filings of 6 pro se litigants should be construed liberally. Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th 7 Cir.2001) (“[W]e have a ‘duty ... to construe pro se pleadings liberally.’ ”) Nonetheless, Plaintiff 8 has not disclosed the amendments he seeks to incorporate into his pleadings, or why Plaintiff 9 seeks such amendments. Accordingly, the Court lacks both a factual and legal basis to grant 10 Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. 11 12 13 14 15 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff James Lanier’s Motion to Amend his First Amended Complaint is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 10c20k July 24, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?