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)

Download PDF
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?