(PC)Ellis v. County of El Dorado et al

Filing 40

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 5/13/2024 RECOMMENDING plaintiff's 38 motion to amend be denied. Referred to Judge Daniel J. Calabretta. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PETER JON ELLIS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 2:22-cv-00823-DJC-JDP (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND
BE DENIED

v.
COUNTY OF EL DORADO, et al.,

ECF No. 38

15

Defendants.
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN
DAYS

16
17

Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

18
19

§ 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend the complaint, ECF No. 38, which defendant

20

opposes, ECF No. 39. For the reasons stated below, I recommend that plaintiff’s motion be

21

denied.

22

Rule 15(a)(2) directs that a court “should freely give leave [to amend a complaint] when

23

justice so requires.” Courts should generally be liberal in allowing a party to amend. Sonoma

24

Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emples. v. Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013). Leave to

25

amend should be denied only where there is strong evidence of “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory

26

motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously

27

allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or]

28

futility of amendment . . . . Id. (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)) (alteration in
1

1

original). Of these elements, the prejudice to the opposing parties is assigned the greatest weight.

2

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).
The entirety of plaintiff’s motion to amend states, “[t]he plaintiff in the above matter is

3
4

requesting to file an amended complaint with the Eastern District Court of California.” ECF

5

No.38. Defendant opposes, arguing that plaintiff’s motion should be denied because he did not

6

file a proposed amended complaint. ECF No. 39.

7

Plaintiff has not filed a proposed amended complaint, so I cannot analyze it properly.

8

Additionally, plaintiff has not articulated any cause for amending his complaint. Therefore, I will

9

recommend that plaintiff’s motion to amend be denied without prejudice. See Fletcher v.

10

Dzurenda, No. 2:18-CV-01077-RFB-VCF, 2020 WL 13748446, at *1 (D. Nev. June 16, 2020)

11

(denying the pro se prisoner’s motion to amend for failure to attach the proposed amended

12

complaint).
Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion to amend, ECF No.

13
14

38, be denied.

15

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

16

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

17

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

18

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

19

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

20

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

21

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

22

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez

23

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
Dated:

May 13, 2024

27

JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
2