(PC) Felde v. Wilkins ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DRAKE FELDE, Case No. 1:19-cv-00339-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND 13 v. COMPLAINT 14 D. WILKINS, I. OGBUEHI, (Doc. No. 44) 15 Defendant. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO STRIKE AMENDED COMPLAINT 16 (Doc. No. 43) 17 18 This matter comes before the court upon initial review of this case that was reassigned to 19 the undersigned. (See Doc. No. 46). Pending review is, inter alia, plaintiff’s motion to amend his 20 complaint (Doc. No. 44). For the reasons set forth below, the court denies plaintiff’s motion to 21 amend without prejudice to refiling once the court has ruled on defendants’ pending motion for 22 summary judgment. (Doc. No. 25). 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff Drake Felde, a state prisoner, initiated this action on March 14, 2019 by filing a 25 pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants D. Wilkins and I. 26 Ogbuehi. (Doc. No. 1). On April 20, 2020, Defendant Wilkins moved for exhaustion-based 27 summary judgment. (Doc. No. 25). The court has yet to rule on this motion. On November 2, 28 2020, plaintiff filed a motion to amend and lodged an amended complaint. (Doc. Nos. 43, 44). 1 Defendants opposed plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. No. 47) and plaintiff filed a reply to the 2 opposition. (Doc. No. 50). 3 II. APPLICABLE LAW 4 Because defendants have already answered the complaint, Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal 5 Rules of Civil Procedure govern whether plaintiff may amend. Under Rule 15(a)(2), “a party 6 may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave” and 7 the “court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” However, a “district court does not 8 err in denying leave to amend where the amendment would be futile.” Saul v. United States, 928 9 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991). Further, leave to amend may be denied where “undue prejudice to 10 the opposing party” would result. Moore v. Kayport Package Express, 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th 11 Cir. 1989). 12 III. ANALYSIS 13 Plaintiff seeks to add new facts in support his complaint, some of which center on 14 Defendant Wilkins. (Doc. No. 43). Defendants oppose the motion to amend. (Doc. No. 47). 15 Defendants point out that they are currently seeking dismissal of Defendant Wilkins in their 16 motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion. (See Doc. No. 25). Defendants argue that 17 because some of the new information plaintiff seeks to add to his complaint relates to Wilkins, 18 and Wilkins could be subject to dismissal, any amendment to the complaint at this time is futile. 19 (Doc. No. 47 at 2). Further, defendants argue that they would be prejudiced if this court grants 20 plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. (Id.). In support of their prejudice argument, defendants 21 point to the time they already expended in responding to the original complaint and argue that 22 more time could be wasted in responding to amended claims centering on Wilkins if Wilkins is 23 dismissed from the suit. (Id.). 24 The court agrees with defendants. At this time, amendment to the complaint prior to the 25 court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment would be futile and prejudicial to the 26 defendants. It is possible that Wilkins will be dismissed from the suit and in that case, the 27 additional briefing that would result from the amended complaint would be a waste of the parties’ 28 1 | and this court’s resources. However, the court will deny plaintiff's motion without prejudice to 2 | refiling once the motion for summary judgment has been resolved. 3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 4 1. Plaintiff's motion to amend (Doc. No. 44) is DENIED without prejudice. 5 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to strike plaintiffs lodged amended complaint 6 (Doc. No. 43) from the docket. 7 g IT IS SO ORDERED. pated: March 14, 2021 Mila Wh fareh Base 10 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA i UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28