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)

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