Percelle v. Pearson et al

Filing 211

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting in part and denying in part 196 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Second Amended Complaint due 07/16/2015. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2015)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

STEVE DALE PERCELLE,
Plaintiff,

5

v.

6
7

S. PEARSON, et al.,
Defendants.

8

Case No. 12-cv-05343-TEH
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT

9

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Steven Dale Percelle’s motion for leave

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

to file a Second Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 196). The Court previously denied

12

Plaintiff’s administrative motion to reconsider its order dismissing his due process claim

13

with prejudice. July 1, 2015 Order at 3 (Docket No. 209). Therefore, the only significant

14

changes remaining in the proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) are additional

15

factual allegations in support of Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim and a new

16

claim for false imprisonment. Proposed SAC at 33-39 (Docket No. 196-1). Defendants

17

filed a statement of non-opposition to the proposed SAC as modified by the Court’s order

18

dismissing the proposed due process claim. (Docket No. 210).
In light of Defendants’ statement of non-opposition, the Court finds this matter

19
20

suitable for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

21

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED IN PART as unopposed. As the Court

22

has already explained, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a sufficient basis for it to reconsider

23

its order dismissing Plaintiff’s due process claim with prejudice; that portion of Plaintiff’s

24

motion for leave to amend is accordingly DENIED.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

1

Plaintiff shall file a SAC no later than one week after entry of this order. The SAC

2

shall not include a due process claim, and shall otherwise only include changes that were

3

included in Plaintiff’s proposed SAC filed on June 22, 2015.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: 07/09/15

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2