McDaniel v. United States Department of Justice, et al.

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/21/2015 DENYING plaintiff's 6 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TANYA GRACE MCDANIEL,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:15-cv-01664-JAM-AC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

On September 22, 2015, the court recommended that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed

19

with prejudice, finding its allegations to be so incredible that they need not be accepted as true.

20

ECF No. 3. On October 9, 2015, plaintiff filed objections to the court’s recommendations. ECF

21

No. 4. Then, on October 13, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint and request for leave to

22

amend. ECF Nos. 5, 6. The court has already recommended that plaintiff’s complaint be

23

dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, any request for leave to amend should have been

24

submitted with plaintiff’s objections. Nevertheless, the court has reviewed plaintiff’s motion and

25

proposed amended complaint. Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint includes the same

26

incredible allegations as her original complaint. Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff’s

27

motion for leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton,

28

Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A motion for leave to amend may be denied if it appears
1

1
2

to be futile or legally insufficient.”)
In accordance with the foregoing, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that plaintiff’s

3

motion for leave to amend, ECF No. 6, is DENIED.

4

DATED: October 21, 2015

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2