King v. Villegas et al

Filing 91

ORDER Re: Lodged Amended Complaint; Plaintiff to File a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/20/2019. THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE. (Orozco, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

JERRY LEE KING,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00676-AWI-EPG (PC)
ORDER RE: LODGED AMENDED
COMPLAINT

v.
(ECF NO. 90)
R. VILLEGAS and P. CRUZ,
Defendants.

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

14
15
16
17

Jerry King (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with
this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On November 18, 2019, Plaintiff lodged a proposed amended complaint. (ECF No. 90).

18

However, Plaintiff did not file a motion for leave to amend along with the complaint. Plaintiff

19

previously filed a motion for leave to amend, but the prior motion does not address all of the

20

claims Plaintiff is attempting to add, and has already been denied (ECF No. 89).

21
22
23

Accordingly, the Court will give Plaintiff thirty days from the date of service of this
order to file a motion for leave to amend.
The Court provides the following legal standards. Courts “should freely give leave [to

24

amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “[T]his policy is to be applied with

25

extreme liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir.

26

1990). See also Waldrip v. Hall, 548 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2008). “However, liberality in

27

granting leave to amend is subject to several limitations. Those limitations include undue

28

prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith by the movant, futility, and undue delay.” Cafasso,
1

1

U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal

2

quotation marks and citations omitted). See also Waldrip, 548 F.3d at 732. “[T]he

3

consideration of prejudice to the opposing party [] carries the greatest weight.” Eminence

4

Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

5

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of

6

service of this order to file a motion for leave to amend. If Plaintiff files a motion for leave to

7

amend, Defendants’ response is due within twenty-one days of the date of the order lifting the

8

stay.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 20, 2019

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2