(PC) Davis v. Hutcheson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DON ANGELO DAVIS, No. 2:20-CV-0077-TLN-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 R. HUTCHESON, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion, ECF No. 35, for leave to 19 amend their answer. 20 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her 21 pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days of serving the pleading or, if the pleading is 22 one to which a responsive pleading is required, within 21 days after service of the responsive 23 pleading, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), or within 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 24 12(b), (e), or (f) of the rules, whichever time is earlier, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). In all 25 other situations, a party’s pleadings may only be amended upon leave of court or stipulation of all 26 the parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Where leave of court to amend is required and sought, 27 the court considers the following factors: (1) whether there is a reasonable relationship between 28 the original and amended pleadings; (2) whether the grant of leave to amend is in the interest of 1 | judicial economy and will promote the speedy resolution of the entire controversy; (3) whether 2 | there was a delay in seeking leave to amend; (4) whether the grant of leave to amend would delay 3 | atrial on the merits of the original claim; and (5) whether the opposing party will be prejudiced 4 | by amendment. See Jackson v. Bank of Hawa1’1, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). Leave to 5 || amend should be denied where the proposed amendment is frivolous. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. 6 | Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). 7 Here, Defendant filed his original answer on October 4, 2021. Because the current 8 | motion to amend was filed more than 21 days after this date, leave of court is required to amend 9 | the answer. Considering the factors above, the Court finds that leave to amend is appropriate. 10 | Defendant seeks leave to amend his answer to allege the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust 11 | administrative remedies prior to filing suit. There is thus a reasonable relationship between the 12 | original answer and proposed amendment. Allowing amendment also served judicial economy to 13 | the extent an early summary judgment motion on the issue of exhaustion could result in a 14 | speedier resolution of the entire action. Further, there does not appear to be an unreasonable 15 | delay given defense counsel’s declaration indicating that he only recently discovered documents 16 | which would support the defense of lack of exhaustion. Leave to amend will not delay a trial on 17 || the merits, should the case proceed that far, because the Court’s scheduling order, issued 18 | following filing of the original answer, will not be modified. Finally, Plaintiff will not be 19 || prejudiced by allowing an amended answer. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. Defendant’s motion for leave to amend his answer, ECF No. 35, is granted; 22 2. The Clerk of the Court shall file the proposed amended answer at ECF No. 23 | 35, pgs. 8-12, and mail a copy to Plaintiff; and 24 3. The April 25, 2022, scheduling order remains in effect. 25 26 | Dated: August 16, 2022 Sx