Bishop v. Lopez, et al.

Filing 80

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Amend The Complaint Without Prejudice (ECF No. 58 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/25/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ROBERT BISHOP,

9
10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.
RAUL LOPEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00273-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION
TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
[ECF No. 58]

14

15
16
17

Plaintiff Robert Bishop is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This action is proceeding against Defendants Lopez, Germond, Rodriguez, Vogel, Jones, Cano,

18

Marshall, Cruz, Tucker, Mauldin, Maita, and Dynsinki for conditions of confinement in violation of

19

the Eighth Amendment.

20
21

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff‟s motion to amend the complaint, filed July 17,
2015. (ECF No. 58.) Defendants filed an opposition on September 4, 2015. (ECF No. 65.)

22

I.

23

DISCUSSION

24

“Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend „shall be freely given when justice so requires.‟”

25

AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R.

26

Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices

27

the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is

28

futile.” AmerisourceBergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 951. Relevant to the futility factor, a plaintiff may not
1

1

bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2);

2

Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.

3

2007).
First, contrary to Plaintiff‟s contention, it is not apparent from Plaintiff‟s second amended

4
5

complaint did not contain a distinct common law claim for negligence, but rather sought relief under

6

the California Constitution which the Court addressed in the February 20, 2015, screening order and

7

properly found such claim not cognizable by way of section 1983. Second, Plaintiff‟s present motion

8

to amend is defective. Local Rule 137(c) requires that all motions for leave to amend be accompanied

9

by the proposed amended complaint. Plaintiff‟s present motion does not include a proposed amended

10

complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff‟s motion to amend is DENIED, without prejudice, to re-filing in a

11

timely manner if so desired.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

15

September 25, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2