Johnson v. Sandoval et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 33 Motion to Amend the Complaint and striking 34 Proposed Amended Complaint signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 2/26/2014. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DONTAY JOHNSON, Case No. 1:12-cv-00018-RRB Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION AT DOCKET 33 vs. C. LOPEZ, et al., Defendants. At Docket 33 Plaintiff Dontay Johnson filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Johnson further requests that the Court appoint counsel. Johnson previously sought leave to file an Amended Complaint which was denied.1 The proposed Amended Complaint at Docket 34 is the proposed Amended Complaint that was stricken, with interlineations and insertions, ostensibly intended to conform to the Court’s Screening Order. The Court’s review of the proposed Amended Complaint sub judice indicates that it simply elaborates on the allegations in the original complaint with respect to Defendant Lopez, principally recasting them in the form of seeking the same relief on the same facts under different legal theories. The Court is not limited to the legal theories pleaded, it may grant the 1 See Order at Docket 27. ORDER DENYING MOTION AT DOCKET 33 1:12-cv-00018-RRB – 1 requested relief based upon any legal theory supported by the facts.2 Accordingly, the proposed amendment is unnecessary. To the extent Plaintiff has renewed his request for appointment of counsel, the Court previously denied that request.3 Plaintiff has not provided any basis upon which the Court may reconsider its prior decision. Accordingly, the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint at Docket 33 is DENIED and the proposed Amended Complaint at Docket 34 is STRICKEN. IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of February, 2014. S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8; see, e.g., Sagana v. Tenorio , 384 F.3d 731, 736–37 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A party need not plead specific legal theories in the complaint, so long as the other side receives notice of what is at issue in the case.”). The Complaint clearly satisfies that standard. 3 Order at Docket 30. ORDER DENYING MOTION AT DOCKET 33 1:12-cv-00018-RRB – 2

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?