Sessing v. Beard, et al.

Filing 19

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motion To File Amended Pleading (ECF No. 17 ), ORDER Directing Clerk To File Lodged Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/20/2014. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 NATHAN SESSING, 10 Plaintiff, 11 Case No. 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS (PC) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE AMENDED PLEADING v. (ECF No. 17) 12 JEFFREY BEARD, et al., 13 Defendants. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE LODGED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 (ECF No. 18) 15 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The First Amended Complaint was dismissed for 19 failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint which has not yet been 20 screened. 21 22 On June 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to file a third amended complaint (ECF No. 17) and concurrently lodged a Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18). 23 Plaintiff need not seek the Court’s permission to amend his pleading because 24 service has not been ordered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Accordingly, the Court sees no reason 25 to deny the requested relief. See Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 26 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006), quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (the court shall freely grant 27 leave to amend when justice so requires). 28 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1 1 1. 17) is GRANTED, and 2 3 Plaintiff’s June 11, 2014 motion to file a third amended complaint (ECF No. 2. The Clerk is directed to file into the record the June 11, 2014 lodged Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18). 4 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 20, 2014 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?