(PC) Robinson v. Acuna ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAVAUGHN K. ROBINSON, No. 2:22-CV-1629-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ALEXANDER ACUNA, et al., 15 Defendants. 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 Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 21, for an extension 19 of time to file an amended complaint. The action currently proceeds on the original complaint, 20 which the Court has determined appropriate for service. To date, while Defendants have filed a 21 notice of their intention to waive personal service, no response to the complaint has been filed. 22 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her 23 pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days of serving the pleading or, if the pleading is 24 one to which a responsive pleading is required, within 21 days after service of the responsive 25 pleading, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), or within 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 26 12(b), (e), or (f) of the rules, whichever time is earlier, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). In all 27 other situations, a party’s pleadings may only be amended upon leave of court or stipulation of all 28 the parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Where leave of court to amend is required and sought, 1 | the court considers the following factors: (1) whether there is a reasonable relationship between 2 || the original and amended pleadings; (2) whether the grant of leave to amend 1s in the interest of 3 || judicial economy and will promote the speedy resolution of the entire controversy; (3) whether 4 || there was a delay in seeking leave to amend; (4) whether the grant of leave to amend would delay 5 || atrial on the merits of the original claim; and (5) whether the opposing party will be prejudiced 6 || by amendment. See Jackson v. Bank of Hawai’i, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). Leave to 7 || amend should be denied where the proposed amendment is frivolous. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. 8 | Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). 9 Here, leave of Court is not required to file an amended complaint because no 10 || responsive pleading or Rule 12 motion has been filed. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time 11 | is therefore denied as unnecessary. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that once a responsive 12 || pleading or Rule 12 motion is filed, any amended complaint filed as of right must be submitted 13 || within 21 days of the date of service of such responsive pleading or Rule 12 motion. Beyond that 14 | time period, leave of Court is required as explained above. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | Dated: December 23, 2022 SS GC M7 DENNIS M. COTA 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28