(PC) Chavez v. Doe 1 ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 GILBERTO CHAVEZ, 1:18-cv-01534-AWI-GSA-PC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT 12 v. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE 13 J. DOE #1, et al., SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT LODGED 14 ON FEBRUARY 19, 2020 Defendants. (ECF No. 24.) 15 16 17 18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Gilberto Chavez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed 22 the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) On January 30, 2020, the court screened 23 the Complaint and issued an order requiring Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify 24 the court that he is willing to proceed only with the deliberate indifference claim against 25 defendant Jane Doe #1, which was found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 15.) On February 26 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 16.) On February 5, 2020, Plaintiff 27 lodged another amended complaint. (ECF No. 18.) On February 7, 2020, the court issued an 28 order striking the lodged amended complaint as improperly filed. (ECF No. 22.) 1 On February 19, 2020, Plaintiff lodged another amended complaint. (ECF No. 24.) The 2 court construes Plaintiff’s lodged amended complaint as a request for leave to file a Second 3 Amended Complaint. 4 II. LEAVE TO AMEND – RULE 15(a) 5 Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s 6 pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, 7 a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and 8 leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Because Plaintiff has 9 already amended the complaint and no adverse party has appeared in this action, Plaintiff requires 10 leave of court to file another amended complaint. 11 “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so 12 requires.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2006) 13 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the 14 amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue 15 delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id. The factor of “‘[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is 16 insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.’” Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, 17 Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712, 713 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 18 (9th Cir. 1999)). 19 Discussion 20 The court finds no bad faith or futility in Plaintiff’s proposed amendment. The proposed 21 Second Amended Complaint arises from the same events at issue in both the Complaint and First 22 Amended Complaint. In fact, the proposed Second Amended Complaint appears identical to the 23 First Amended Complaint except for the addition of more exhibits. Because the First Amended 24 Complaint awaits the court’s requisite screening and has not been served, there will be no undue 25 delay or prejudice to Defendants in allowing Plaintiff to proceed with the Second Amended 26 Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff shall be granted leave to amend, and the Second Amended 27 Complaint shall be filed. 28 /// 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the complaint; 4 2. The Clerk is directed to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint, which was 5 lodged on February 19, 2020; and 6 3. The Second Amended Complaint shall be screened in due course. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: February 20, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28