Oliver v. Shelton et al

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 08/29/19 GRANTING 42 plaintiff's request for leave to amend. Defendants shall file a response to plaintiff's second amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DARON MICHAEL OLIVER,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:18-CV-1809-KJM-DMC-P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

DUANE SHELTON, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to

18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s request for leave to file an amended

19

complaint (ECF No. 42).

20

On August 8, 2019, the court issued an order addressing the status of the pleadings

21

in this case in the context of defendants’ then-pending motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended

22

complaint. See ECF No. 41. The court noted at footnote 1: “The first amended complaint was

23

filed with leave of court following the court’s ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s

24

original complaint. See ECF No. 31 (April 23, 2019, district judge order granting defendants’

25

motion to dismiss and directing plaintiff to file a first amended complaint).” The court also

26

noted: “This action, however, now proceeds on a superseding pleading, specifically a second

27

amended complaint filed as of right on June 17, 2019 (ECF No. 36). See Fed. R. Civ. P.

28

15(a)(1)(A), (B).” The court also struck from the record a third amended complaint filed without
1

1
2

leave of court. See ECF No. 41, pg. 2.
In his current request for leave to amend, plaintiff states he “need to add new

3

defendants,” see id., but does not say who the new defendants are, what his factual allegations

4

against these new defendants are, or how they relate to the current pleading. As discussed above,

5

leave of court is required to further amend because plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed as

6

of right. Plaintiff’s current one-page, conclusory request simply fails to demonstrate good cause

7

for a court order permitting leave to amend.

8
9

The court will sua sponte extend the time for defendants to respond to plaintiff’s
second amended complaint.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1.

Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend (ECF No. 42) is denied; and

12

2.

Defendants shall file a response to plaintiff’s second amended complaint

13

within 30 days of the date of this order.

14
15
16

Dated: August 29, 2019
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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