Ahkeem Williams v. Pedriero et al
ORDER DENYING 42 Motion to Amend, Without Prejudice to Renewal Within Thirty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/2/2013. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KIM PEDRIERO, et al.,
Case No. 1:12-cv-00606-SKO PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL
WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Plaintiff Akheem Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 17, 2012. This action is proceeding
19 against Defendants Garcia, Valdiz, Cortez, Silva, Castro, Day, Stephens, Collier, Torres, Delia,
20 and Tordson for use of excessive physical force, in violation of the United States Constitution.
On August 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Defendants
22 did not file a response. Local Rule 230(l).
“Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so
24 requires.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006)
25 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the
26 amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue
27 delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id.
The motion lacked a proof of service, an issue which was addressed in a separate concurrently filed order.
In this instance, Plaintiff’s failure to include a proposed amended complaint precludes the
2 Court from evaluating whether leave to amend should be granted. Based on that procedural
3 deficiency, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice to
4 renewal within thirty (30) days.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 2, 2013
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The deadline for amending the pleadings was September 12, 2013. Given that Plaintiff’s motion to amend was
timely filed and he is proceeding pro se, the Court will permit him a limited period of thirty days within which to
renew his motion. If Plaintiff elects to file another motion for leave to amend accompanied by a proposed amended
complaint within the next thirty days, he is placed on notice that the amended complaint must be complete within
itself, as it will supercede his present complaint, should leave to amend be granted. Local Rule 220; Lacey v.
Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).
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?