Matthews v. San Diego County Board of Supervisors et al

Filing 25

ORDER Denying as Moot 17 Motion to Dismiss; and Granting Plaintiff's 24 Motion to Amend Complaint. Plaintiff is instructed to file his First Amended Complaint as a separate item to the docket, and to effect the appropriate service there for. Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is denied as moot, and the motion hearing scheduled for that motion, on December 14, 2018, is hereby vacated. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 11/28/18. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

THOMAS MATTHEWS,

Case No.: 3:18-CV-711-GPC-NLS
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, et al., CODE
ENFORCEMENT AGENTS TERESA
WILLIS & MICHAEL MURPHY; SAN
DIEGO COUNTY TREASURE'S
OFFICE, (all defendants sued in their
individual and official capacity),

14
15
16
17
18

[ECF No. 24.]

Defendants.

19
20

On November 19, 2018, pro se Plaintiff Thomas Matthews (“Plaintiff”) filed a

21

motion with this Court (ECF No. 24) in response to the Court’s scheduling order, which

22

set the deadline for Plaintiff’s response to Defendant County of San Diego’s motion to

23

dismiss (ECF No. 17) for the same date. Plaintiff’s motion was to serve two purposes:

24

first, Plaintiff conceded that his original complaint did “not state any claims for relief,”

25

and had failed to “state any claims for damages.” (ECF No. 24, at 2.) Second, in

26

recognition of his pleading deficiencies, Plaintiff has moved the Court for leave to file a

27

First Amended Complaint. The proposed amended complaint is attached to Plaintiff’s

28
1
3:18-CV-711-GPC-NLS

1

motion. It names a six additional county-level government-official defendants, and

2

asserts thirteen causes of action, including perjury, wire fraud, and malicious prosecution.

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that leave to amend shall be

4

freely granted “when justice so requires.” Leave may be denied for reasons such as

5

undue delay, bad faith, futility of amendment, or prejudice to the opposing party. Hurn v.

6

Retirement Fund Trust, 648 F.2d 1252, 1254 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court finds that none

7

of these reasons are present in this case; accordingly, leave to amend is granted.

8

In turn, the Court finds that leave to amend moots the Defendant’s pending motion

9

to dismiss (ECF No. 17) because the motion addresses the original complaint, which was

10

limited to a prayer for a restraining order (and potentially raised a 42 U.S.C. § 1983

11

claim). Defendants may file another motion to dismiss if they wish, but it should address

12

the amended complaint.

13
14

CONCLUSION
The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff is instructed to

15

file his First Amended Complaint as a separate item to the docket, and to effect the

16

appropriate service therefor. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is denied as

17

moot, and the motion hearing scheduled for that motion, on December 14, 2018, is

18

hereby vacated.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 28, 2018

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
3:18-CV-711-GPC-NLS