Davis v. Washington State Department of Corrections
ORDER granting first 31 Motion to Amend. The Court denies plaintiff's second 32 Motion to Amend as duplicative. Signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Willie Davis, Prisoner ID: 629857)(CMG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
WILLIE C DAVIS,
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-05146-RBL-JRC
ORDER ON MOTION TO AMEND
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Plaintiff, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Presently before the Court are two motions to amend filed by plaintiff. Dkt. 31
(“first motion to amend”), Dkt. 32 (“second motion to amend”). The two motions are identical.
Defendants have not filed an opposition to either motion. The Court grants plaintiff’s first
motion to amend (Dkt. 31), and denies the second motion to amend (Dkt. 32) as duplicative.
Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course
A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within:
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required,
21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after
ORDER - 1
service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is
(2) Other Amendments
In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the
opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court
should freely give leave when justice so requires
Having reviewed plaintiff’s first motion to amend, with no opposition from defendants,
the Court grants the first motion to amend (Dkt. 31). The Court denies plaintiff’s second motion
to amend (Dkt. 32) as duplicative.
The Clerk is directed to docket plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint (Dkt. 319
2) as the second amended complaint.
Dated this 10th day of March, 2017.
J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER - 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?