Gibbs v. California Department of Fish and Game et al
Filing
63
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 8/11/16 ORDERING that plaintiff's 58 apparent motion for leave to amend/supplement is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ROBERT ALAN GIBBS,
12
13
14
15
16
17
No. 2:13-CV-2631-KJM-CMK
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
BOYD, et al.,
Defendants.
/
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action. Pending before
18
the court is plaintiff’s March 23, 2016, letter (Doc. 58) in which he appears to seek leave to
19
amend or supplement his complaint.
20
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her
21
pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days of serving the pleading or, if the pleading is
22
one to which a responsive pleading is required, within 21 days after service of the responsive
23
pleading, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), or within 21 days after service of a motion under Rule
24
12(b), (e), or (f) of the rules, whichever time is earlier, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). In all
25
other situations, a party’s pleadings may only be amended upon leave of court or stipulation of all
26
the parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Where leave of court to amend is required and sought,
1
1
the court considers the following factors: (1) whether there is a reasonable relationship between
2
the original and amended pleadings; (2) whether the grant of leave to amend is in the interest of
3
judicial economy and will promote the speedy resolution of the entire controversy; (3) whether
4
there was a delay in seeking leave to amend; (4) whether the grant of leave to amend would delay
5
a trial on the merits of the original claim; and (5) whether the opposing party will be prejudiced
6
by amendment. See Jackson v. Bank of Hawai’i, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). Leave to
7
amend should be denied where the proposed amendment is frivolous. See DCD Programs, Ltd.
8
v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). In this case, leave of court is required because
9
defendants have appeared in the action.
10
Plaintiff’s filing is a missive against various Shasta County officials, including
11
state court judges and law enforcement officers. Plaintiff has not, however, demonstrated any
12
reasonable relationship between the original complaint, in which he alleges various civil rights
13
violations in connection with his arrest in December 2012, and his claims against Shasta County
14
officials. Moreover, the court finds that the contemplated amendment/supplement would delay
15
resolution of plaintiff’s claims against the arresting officers. Finally, plaintiff has not explained
16
why he now seeks leave to amend/supplement his complaint more than two years after this action
17
was originally filed. For these reasons, leave to amend/supplement will not be granted.
18
19
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s apparent motion for
leave to amend/supplement (Doc. 58) is denied.
20
21
22
23
DATED: August 11, 2016
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
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?