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)

Download PDF
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

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?