(PC) Randolph v. Sandoval ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COLIN M. RANDOLPH, Case No. 1:18-cv-00968-LJO-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND 13 v. (ECF No. 14) 14 C. SANDOVAL, et al., THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Colin M. Randolph is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On June 7, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff’s original complaint, found that Plaintiff’s 20 complaint stated a cognizable claim for excessive force against Defendants Benavides and 21 Carrillo and a cognizable claim for retaliation against Defendant Sandoval, and directed Plaintiff 22 to file either a first amended complaint or a written notice that he was willing to proceed only on 23 the claims found cognizable by the Court within 30 days. (ECF No. 12.) On June 24, 2019, 24 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 13.) 25 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion “requesting permission to supplement 26 [first amended complaint] as it reflects order (ECF No. 10) granting, acknowledging retaliatorial 27 practices herein K.V.S.P. that is chilling litigation process,” filed on September 26, 2019. (ECF 28 No. 14.) The Court construes this filing as a motion for leave to file a second amended 1 complaint. 2 Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s 3 pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. 4 Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse 5 party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “Rule 15(a) 6 is very liberal and leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires.” 7 AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and 8 quotation omitted). The Ninth Circuit has stated that “this policy is to be applied with extreme 9 liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). 10 However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the 11 opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is 12 futile.” Id. Nevertheless, “[u]ndue delay by itself … is insufficient to justify denying a motion to 13 amend. Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir. 1999). 14 In his motion, Plaintiff states that he wishes to supplement his first amended complaint to 15 include a claim that Kern Valley State Prison officials seized all discovery and legal documents 16 directly related to this pending action in retaliation for Plaintiff’s filing and pursuit of this action 17 and other non-related legal actions. (ECF No. 14, at 1-2.) In considering the relevant factors, the 18 Court finds no evidence of prejudice, bad faith, undue delay in litigation, or futility. Plaintiff’s 19 first amended complaint has not yet been screened and no defendants have been served or have 20 appeared in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to amend will be granted. After Plaintiff 21 files his second amended complaint, it will be screened in due course. 22 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must 23 state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, 24 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual 25 allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell 26 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). 27 Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 28 claims in his second amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 1 “buckshot” complaints). 2 Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 3 Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s second 4 amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded 5 pleading.” Local Rule 220. This includes any exhibits or attachments Plaintiff wishes to 6 incorporate by reference. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint, 8 (ECF No. 14), is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint within thirty (30) 9 days from the date of service of this order. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: October 1, 2019 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28