(PC) Giscome v. Redman ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY GISCOME, Case No. 1:19-cv-00064-DAD-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO AMEND 13 v. ECF No. 21 14 T. REDMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Timothy Giscome is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil 18 rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 21, 2019, the court recommended that plaintiff’s 19 claim be dismissed for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 18. On August 26, 2019, plaintiff filed a 20 one-page notice, conceding the correctness of the June 21 findings and requesting that the court 21 consider a third amended complaint. ECF No. 21. Plaintiff attached his proposed third amended 22 complaint to the notice. ECF No. 22. 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) instructs courts to “freely give leave [to amend] 24 when justice so requires.” See also Arizona Students’ Ass’n v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 824 F.3d 25 858, 871 (9th Cir. 2016). “This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” C.F. v. 26 Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 985 (9th Cir. 2011). The court may decline to grant 27 leave to amend only where there is a strong showing of: (1) undue delay, (2) bad faith or dilatory 28 motive, (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, (4) undue 1 | prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, or (5) futility of 2 | amendment. See Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 3 | (th Cir. 2013). 4 Here, the court finds that further amendment would be futile, as evidenced by a repeated 5 | failure to cure deficiencies in the amendments previously allowed. The court’s order screening 6 | plaintiffs first amended complaint specifically noted that the court would provide plaintiff with 7 | “a final opportunity to file a complaint that states a claim.” ECF No. 16 at 2 (emphasis added). 8 | Despite this warning, plaintiff's second amended complaint was nearly identical to his original 9 | complaint and amended complaint, and contained the same deficiencies. See ECF No. 18. 10 Tn addition, the court notes that plaintiff's proposed third amended complaint, ECF No. 11 | 22, also contains these deficiencies. Compare ECF No. 22 at 4 with ECF No. 17 at 3-6. While 12 | the court does not accept this complaint or fully consider the merits, the courts finds that this is 13 | further evidence of the futility of further amendment. 14 Plaintiffs request for further amendment is therefore denied. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ( akan Dated: _ February 9, 2020 18 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 | No. 205. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28