Dixon v. Allison et al

Filing 24

ORDER GRANTING Motion for Leave to Amend and ORDER Directing Clerk to File Third Amended Complaint 23 Lodged on October 9, 2014, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/10/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICK DIXON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:10-cv-02365-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND

vs.
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
LODGED ON OCTOBER 9, 2014
(Doc. 23.)

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

I.

BACKGROUND
Rick Dixon (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action

20

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

21

December 20, 2010. (Doc. 1.)

Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on

22

On January 20, 2011, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge in this

23

action, and no other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 7.) Therefore, pursuant to

24

Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall

25

conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge

26

is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

27

The court screened the Complaint and entered an order on April 17, 2013, dismissing

28

the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 12.) On May 20, 2013,
1

1

Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 13.) The court screened the First Amended

2

Complaint and entered an order on January 27, 2014, dismissing the First Amended Complaint

3

for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 15.) On May 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed the

4

Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 21.)

5

On October 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend and lodged a proposed

6

Third Amended Complaint. (Doc. 23.) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is now before the

7

court.

8

II.

LEAVE TO AMEND – RULE 15(a)

9

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

10

party=s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.

11

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written

12

consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Id. Here,

13

because Plaintiff has already amended the complaint more than once, Plaintiff requires leave of

14

court to file a Third Amended Complaint.

15

ARule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend >shall be freely given when justice so

16

requires.=@ AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir.

17

2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts Aneed not grant leave to amend where

18

the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an

19

undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.@ Id. The factor of A>[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is

20

insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.=@ Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,

21

Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712,13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58

22

(9th Cir. 1999)).

23

Plaintiff’s Motion

24

Plaintiff requests leave to file a Third Amended Complaint to make corrections and

25

additions to the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff explains that he discovered, through

26

research, that he needs to re-state his claims to meet federal standards. Plaintiff has lodged a

27

proposed Third Amended Complaint for the court’s review.

28

///
2

1

Discussion

2

Plaintiff’s allegations and claims in this action arise from events at the Substance Abuse

3

Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California, beginning on July 25, 2008, during which

4

Plaintiff’s rights were violated by prison officials who subjected him to sixteen months of

5

lockdown. The proposed Third Amended Complaint arises from the same events documented

6

in the Second Amended Complaint. In light of the fact that Plaintiff submitted the proposed

7

Third Amended Complaint before the court had screened the Second Amended Complaint, the

8

court finds no undue delay or prejudice to defendants in allowing the amendment. The court

9

finds no evidence of bad faith by Plaintiff or futility in allowing the amendment. Accordingly,

10

Plaintiff’s motion to amend shall be granted, and the Third Amended Complaint shall be filed.

11

III.

CONCLUSION

12

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

14
15

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, filed on October 9, 2014, is GRANTED;
and

2.

16

The Clerk is directed to file the proposed Third Amended Complaint which was
lodged on October 9, 2014.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 10, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3