Olivas v. State of Nevada, ex rel

Filing 47

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 43 that plaintiff's motion to amend/correct complaint be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file, within fourteen (14) days from the entry of this order, an amended compl aint identical to the one attached to 43 his motion to amend. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 33 defendants' motion to dismiss be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/23/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

DARIO OLIVAS,

Case No. 2:14-CV-1801 JCM (VCF)

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

ORDER

v.
STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is a motion to amend/correct complaint filed by plaintiff Dario

14

Olivas (ECF No. 43).

15

Department of Corrections filed a response, (ECF No. 45), to which plaintiff replied (ECF No.

16

46).

17
18

Defendants Nicholas Galbisco and the State of Nevada ex rel. the

Also before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 33).
Plaintiff has not filed a response, and the time for doing so has since passed.

19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave

20

[to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The United States Supreme Court

21

has interpreted Rule 15(a) and confirmed the liberal standard district courts must apply when

22

granting such leave. In Foman v. Davis, the Supreme Court explained:

23
24
25
26

In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith
or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies
by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue
of allowance of the amendment, futility of the amendment, etc.—the leave sought
should, as the rules require, be “freely given.”
371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

27

Plaintiff’s complaint asserts that the court should grant leave to amend so that he may

28

correct factual inaccuracies in his current amended complaint. (ECF No. 43). Plaintiff recently

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

obtained new counsel who learned of these factual inaccuracies while reviewing plaintiff’s case

2

file and interviewing plaintiff. Id. Defendants’ response does not demonstrate any undue delay,

3

bad faith, or other adequate reason to deny plaintiff’s motion to amend. (ECF No. 45). In light of

4

Rule 15’s liberal standard, the court will grant plaintiff’s motion to amend/correct his complaint.

5

(ECF No. 43).

6

Accordingly,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to amend/correct complaint (ECF No.

8

43) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file, within fourteen (14) days from the

10

entry of this order, an amended complaint identical to the one attached to his motion to amend

11

(ECF No. 43).

12
13
14
15
16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 33) be, and the
same hereby is, DENIED as moot.
DATED February 23, 2018.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-