(PC) Ramos v. Mayfield ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 LEOBARDO ERIC RAMOS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01036-ADA-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 11 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND, v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 12 MAYFIELD, et al., (ECF No. 91) 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 Leobardo Ramos (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 This case is currently proceeding on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force 20 claim against defendant Mayfield and defendant Doe. (ECF No. 21). All other claims were 21 dismissed. (Id.). 22 On February 27, 2023, Plaintiff lodged an amended complaint. (ECF No. 89). The 23 Court informed Plaintiff that if he wanted to amend his complaint, he needed to file a motion 24 for leave to amend. (ECF No. 90). The Court also noted that, “[a]s there [was] no motion for 25 leave to amend, there [was] no explanation as to what changes Plaintiff is attempting to make 26 or why he should be allowed to make those changes at this time.” (Id. at 1-2). 27 On March 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend to amend “to amend 28 Declaratory Relief. “ (ECF No. 91). Plaintiff asserts that he did not know he had to file a 1 motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff asks for leave to amend to add “new details in Declaratory 2 Relief.” Plaintiff asserts that he wants to update his case with new factors that are essential to 3 his case. Plaintiff further asserts that these changes are critical at this point to keep the facts 4 straight. “The new declaratory relief has new names & changes that are essential….” (Id. at 5 1). 6 The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion, without prejudice. As mentioned in the Court’s 7 prior order, Plaintiff needs to file a motion for leave to amend to explain the changes he is 8 attempting to make, as well as why he should be allowed to make the changes at this time. 9 However, while Plaintiff generally asserts that he wants to add new information, Plaintiff’s 10 motion includes no details regarding the changes he is attempting to make or why he should be 11 allowed to make the changes at this time. 12 The Court notes that this case was filed in July of 2021, and the non-expert discovery 13 cutoff in this case is in less than three weeks away. (See ECF Nos. 1 & 57). Moreover, while 14 Plaintiff asserts that he did not know that he had to file a motion for leave to amend if he 15 wanted to amend his complaint, the Court has repeatedly informed Plaintiff of this requirement, 16 the first time occurring in November of 2021. (ECF No. 16, p. 1 n.1; ECF No. 27, p. 1; ECF 17 No. 54, p. 1). Finally, to the extent Plaintiff is only attempting to amend his request for 18 declaratory relief, it is not clear that amendment is required. A final judgment not based on 19 default “should grant the relief to which each party is entitled, even if the party has not 20 demanded that relief in its pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c). 21 Given Plaintiff’s failure to explain the changes he is attempting to make and why he 22 should be allowed to make those changes at this point in the case, the Court will deny 23 Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, without prejudice. The Court also provides Plaintiff with 24 the following relevant legal standards. 25 Courts “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 15(a)(2). “[T]his policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission 27 Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Waldrip v. Hall, 548 F.3d 729, 28 732 (9th Cir. 2008). “However, liberality in granting leave to amend is subject to several 1 || limitations. Those limitations include undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith by the 2 movant, futility, and undue delay.” Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 3 || F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also 4 || Waldrip, 548 F.3d at 732. “[I]t is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that 5 || carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th 6 || Cir. 2003) (per curiam). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining [] 7 || factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. 8 || However, “[w]here the party seeking amendment knows or should know of the facts upon 9 || which the proposed amendment is based but fails to include them in the original complaint, the 10 motion to amend may be denied.” De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 878 11 || (9th Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 12 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is 13 || denied without prejudice. 14 1s IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘6 |! Dated: _ March 13, 2023 [spe hey —— 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28