Furnace v. Vasquez

Filing 25

ORDER Re Plaintiff's Motion For Clarification (ECF No. 23 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/20/2013. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

CASE No. 1:11-cv-02034-LJO-DLB (PC)
EDWARD FURNACE,
Plaintiff

10
v.

11
12

Defendant.
Plaintiff Edward Furnace (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

14

16
17
18
19

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on
December 9, 2011. On September 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for clarification as to whether
he is permitted to engage in discovery and whether he can amend his complaint. (ECF No. 23.)
Plaintiff is notified that on July 24, 2013, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling which
provided guidelines for the parties to engage in discovery. (ECF No. 19.)
As to Plaintiff’s inquiry for amending his complaint, under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(ECF No. 23)

L. VASQUEZ,

13

15

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION

of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course at any time
before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court
or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when
justice so requires.’” Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysis W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir.
2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). A responsive pleading has already been served in this case,
and therefore Plaintiff may only amend his complaint with leave of the court or with consent of
///

1

the adverse party.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

September 20, 2013

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

427h8ijefekbei

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

L. Beck

2