Hardy v. Davis et al

Filing 127

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 10/08/19 DENYING 81 Motion to Amend the Complaint. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KRISTIN HARDY,

12

No. 2:13-cv-0726 JAM DB P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

C. DAVIS, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil

17
18

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to this court

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
Before this court is plaintiff’s motion to amend the first amended complaint. (ECF No.

20
21

81). Defendants have filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion, and plaintiff has filed a reply.

22

(ECF Nos. 86, 88).

23

Since the filing of plaintiff’s motion to amend, discovery has closed, and dispositive

24

motions have been filed and adjudicated.1 (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 83, 84, 102). Furthermore,

25

plaintiff has already amended the complaint once (see ECF No. 52), and the time-period within

26

which to have requested leave to amend again had long passed at the time plaintiff filed the

27
28

1

Indeed, the court’s delay in addressing this motion appears to have been an oversight.
1

1

instant motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P 15(a)(1)(B) (stating need to amend within twenty-one days

2

after service of responsive pleading).

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to amend the first

4

amended complaint (ECF No. 81) is DENIED as moot.

5

Dated: October 8, 2019

6
7
8
9
10

DLB:13
DB/ORDERS/ORDERS.PRISONER.CIVIL RIGHTS/hard0726.mta.den

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2