Cathey v. City of Vallejo, et al.

Filing 17

ORDER granting 14 Motion to Amend the Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/23/15. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DESHAWN CATHEY,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-01749-JAM-AC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On April 3,

18

2015, plaintiff filed his first motion for leave to amend with a scheduled hearing for April 29,

19

2015. ECF Nos. 14, 15. On April 20, 2015, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion.

20

ECF No. 16. In light of the liberal standard applicable to motions for leave to amend, the court

21

will grant plaintiff’s motion and vacate the hearing scheduled for April 29, 2015.

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) instructs district courts that “leave [to amend] shall

23

be freely given when justice so requires.” “In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—

24

such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to

25

cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by

26

virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. -- the leave sought should, as

27

the rules require, be freely given.” Schultz v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 68 Fed. Appx. 130, 132 (9th

28

Cir. 2003) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (internal quotation marks
1

1

omitted). “The strong policy permitting amendment is to be applied with ‘extreme liberality.’”

2

Id. (quoting Eminence Capital, L.L.C. v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003)

3

(citation omitted in original).

4

Plaintiff seeks permission to amend his complaint in order to add allegations that

5

defendant Jodi Brown used deadly force during his arrest. ECF No. 14 at 2. Defendants’

6

opposition argues, in one sentence, that plaintiff’s motion should be denied because his factual

7

allegations cannot support a finding of deadly force. ECF No. 16. The court finds that in light of

8

the strong policy in favor of granting leave to amend, plaintiff’s motion should be granted.

9

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

10
11
12
13
14

1. The court’s April 29, 2015, hearing on plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is
VACATED; and
2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s
operative complaint is now his first amended complaint. ECF No. 15.
DATED: April 23, 2015

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