(PC) Perez v. Bonta ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSE PEREZ, 1:22-cv-00692-AWI-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 13 vs. (ECF No. 11.) 14 BONTA, et al., ORDER FOR CLERK TO FILE SECOND 15 Defendants. AMENDED COMPLAINT LODGED ON JULY 11, 2022 16 (ECF No. 12.) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 Jesse Perez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 26 this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this 27 action on April 27, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed the First Amended 28 Complaint as a matter of course. (ECF No. 5.) 1 On July 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. 2 (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff also lodged a proposed Second Amended Complaint for the Court’s 3 review. (ECF No. 12.) 4 II. RULE 15(a) – LEAVE TO AMEND 5 “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so 6 requires.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2006) 7 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the 8 amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue 9 delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id. The factor of “‘[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is 10 insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.’” Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, 11 Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712, 713 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 12 (9th Cir. 1999)). 13 Plaintiff’s Motion 14 Plaintiff seeks to file a Second Amended Complaint to add additional state defendants 15 alleged to have violated Plaintiff’s protected rights. At this stage of the proceedings Plaintiff 16 may only amend the complaint with leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). He argues that his 17 motion should be granted because in this early stage of the proceedings the Court has not issued 18 its screening order and none of the defendants have made an appearance. 19 The Court finds no bad faith or futility in Plaintiff’s proposed amendment. The proposed 20 supplemental information arises from the same events at issue in the First Amended Complaint 21 for this action. Because the First Amended Complaint awaits the Court’s requisite screening 22 and has not been served, there will be no undue delay or prejudice to Defendants in allowing 23 Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff s motion shall be granted, 24 and the Second Amended Complaint shall be filed. 25 III. CONCLUSION 26 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, filed on July 11, 2022, is granted; 28 /// 1 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Second Amended Complaint lodged on 2 July 11, 2022; and 3 3. The Second Amended Complaint shall be screened in due course. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: October 23, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28