Williams v. Cates et al

Filing 79

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Amend First Amended Complaint 74 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/8/14. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

HORACE MANN WILLIAMS,

12

Case No. 1:12-cv-00730 LJO DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO AMEND FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

MARISOL, et al.,

15

[ECF No. 74]

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Horace Mann Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18 pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 4, 2012. The matter
19 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
20 Rule 302.
21

On November 27, 2012, the Court screened the complaint and directed Plaintiff to file an

22 amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on claims found to be
23 cognizable. On December 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). On
24 May 13, 2013, the Court dismissed certain claims and defendants. On November 24, 2014,
25 Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the FAC to reflect the fact that Plaintiff had filed one previous
26 lawsuit while a state prisoner.
27

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that Plaintiff may amend

28 with leave of the court, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P.

1

1 15(a). “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so
2 requires.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006)
3 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the
4 amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue
5 delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id. The factor of “‘[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is
6 insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.’” Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,
7 Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712-13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 (9th
8 Cir. 1999)). However, “‘[w]here the party seeking amendment knows or should know of the
9 facts upon which the proposed amendment is based but fails to include them in the original
10 complaint, the motion to amend may be denied,’” E.E.O.C. v. Boeing, Co., 843 F.2d 1213, 1222
11 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Jordan v. County of Los Angeles, 669 F.2d 1311, 1324 (9th Cir. 1982),
12 vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S. 810, 103 S.Ct. 35 (1982)), and the “court’s discretion to deny
13 leave to amend is particularly broad where the court has already given the plaintiff an
14 opportunity to amend his complaint,” Fidelity Financial Corp. v. Federal Home Loan Bank of
15 San Francisco, 792 F.2d 1432, 1438 (9th Cir. 1986).
Here, Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint to reflect the fact that he has filed one

16

17 previous lawsuit. The Court does not find good cause to grant Plaintiff leave to file a second
18 amended complaint at this stage in the proceedings. Defendant Lopez filed an answer on
19 November 3, 2014, and Defendants Agu, Sica, and Trimble filed an answer on December 1,
20 2014. Moreover, the information Plaintiff seeks to correct is not relevant to the issues in this
21 case.
ORDER

22
23

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend his FAC is

24 DENIED.
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

December 8, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3