Montiel v. Yates, et al.
Filing
33
ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's 24 Motion to Correct Dates, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/7/2013. Plaintiff Must File a Complete, Amended Complaint Within Thirty (30) Days. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
JESSE J. MONTIEL,
vs.
YATES, et al.,
13
Defendants.
1:11cv02145 LJO DLB PC
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO CORRECT DATES
(Document 24)
14
Plaintiff Jesse J. Montiel (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California
15
16
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in
17
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.1983. This action is proceeding on
18
Plaintiff’s December 28, 2011, complaint for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need
19
violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Green, Taher-Pour, Wilson, Das and
20
21
22
Wynn.
Defendants Taher-Pour and Wilson filed their answer on June 24, 2013. The remaining
three Defendants have not yet been served.
23
On July 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to correct dates in Paragraphs 19 and 21 of his
24
25
26
27
28
complaint. Defendants did not file an opposition.
DISCUSSION
Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules 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.
1
1
Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse
2
party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a). “Rule
3
15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires.’”
4
5
AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the amendment:
6
7
8
9
(1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in the
litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id. The factor of “‘[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is insufficient to justify
denying a motion to amend.’” Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708,
10
712-13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 (9th Cir. 1999)). In this
11
case, a responsive pleading has been served. Therefore, Plaintiff may not file an amended
12
complaint without leave of the court.
13
Here, Plaintiff seeks to change a time-frame referred to in Paragraph 19 from “1 year” to
14
“7.5 months.” He also seeks to change a date in Paragraph 21 from “November 26, 2010” to
15
“November 19, 2010.” Plaintiff states that he inadvertently included the incorrect dates and
16
17
18
discovered the correct dates through a response from Defendants.
The Court finds that allowing Plaintiff to amend the dates described above would not
prejudice Defendants, would not result in undue delay and would not be futile. There is also no
19
indication that Plaintiff seeks to amend in bad faith.
20
21
22
23
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff must file a complete,
amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order. Plaintiff is
reminded that these are the only changes that he may make, and that his amended complaint
24
should only reference the Eighth Amendment claim that has been found cognizable. Plaintiff is
25
further reminded that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v.
26
Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in
27
itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading.” Local Rule 220.
28
2
1
2
3
Defendants may file a responsive pleading within thirty (30) days of the date of service of
the First Amended Complaint, or they may notify the Court that they wish to stand on their June
4, 2013, answer.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
Dated:
/s/ Dennis
August 7, 2013
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
8
9
L. Beck
3b142a
10
11
12
13
14
15
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?