Sharp v. Mims
Filing
20
ORDER denying as unnecessary 16 Motion to Amend the Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/24/2013. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANTHONY A. SHARP,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
MARGARET MIMS, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:13-cv-00534-AWI-BAM PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND AS UNNECESSARY
(ECF No. 16)
Plaintiff Anthony A. Sharp is a former jail inmate and current civil detainee proceeding pro se
18
and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint in
19
this action was filed on April 15, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend on
20
May 31, 2013. (ECF No 16.) Plaintiff subsequently filed his first amended complaint on June 7,
21
2013. (ECF No. 16.)
22
Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend its pleading
23
once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
24
Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party,
25
and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Id. In this case, a responsive pleading has not
26
been ordered or served and Plaintiff has not previously amended his complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff
27
was entitled to file his amended complaint without leave of the Court.
28
1
1
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is DENIED
2
as unnecessary. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint has been filed with the Court.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
October 24, 2013
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?