Davis v. Herrick et al

Filing 21

ORDER GRANTING 19 Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to the Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 5/8/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8
9
10

1:15-cv-01299-LJO-EPG (PC)

GLEN A. DAVIS,
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT

v.
A. HERRICK and R. PARKER,

(ECF NO. 19)

Defendants.

11
12
13

Glen Davis (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

14

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On March 10, 2017, Defendants filed

15

their answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 16). Less than a month later, on April 7, 2017,

16

Defendants filed a motion for leave to amend their answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 19).

17

Plaintiff did not file an objection.

18

Defendants move for leave to amend their answer because they want to add the

19

affirmative defenses of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to comply with

20

the applicable statute of limitations to their answer. Defendants state that they inadvertently

21

omitted the failure to exhaust defense from their answer, and that they only became aware of

22

their statute of limitations defense when their counsel began reviewing documents in

23

preparation for initial disclosures.

24

Courts “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

25

15(a)(2). “[T]his policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission

26

Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). See also Waldrip v. Hall, 548 F.3d 729,

27

732 (9th Cir. 2008). “However, liberality in granting leave to amend is subject to several

28

limitations. Those limitations include undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith by the
1

1

movant, futility, and undue delay.” Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637

2

F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). See also

3

Waldrip v. Hall, 548 F.3d at 732.

4

Given that the Court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires,”

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), the short time period between the answer being filed and the motion to

6

amend the answer, the lack of prejudice to Plaintiff, and the fact that Plaintiff did not object to

7

this motion, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion for leave to amend.

8

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for

9

leave to amend their answer is GRANTED. Defendants have leave to file their proposed

10

amended answer (ECF No. 19-2).

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 8, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2