(PS) Mandujano v. Lester ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YANAH MANDUJANO, No. 2:23-cv-02385-DJC-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 KATHERINE LESTER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Yanah Mandujano, appearing pro se, filed this fee paid complaint against 18 Defendants Katherine Lester, “Unnamed Sacramento Police Officer,” Darren Pytel, “Unnamed” 19 Davis Police Officer, and Rob Bonta. (ECF No. 1.)1 Defendants filed a series of separate motions 20 to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which were set to be heard on 21 March 6, 2024. (ECF Nos. 5, 8, 9.) The undersigned took Defendants’ motions under submission 22 without oral argument in accordance with Local Rule 230(g). (ECF No. 14.) On May 5, 2024, 23 Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 16.) On March 22, 2024, Defendant Bonta 24 filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which was set to be heard on May 1, 25 2024. (ECF No. 20.) On April 26, 2024, the undersigned construed Plaintiff’s First Amended 26 Complaint as a motion for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) and 27 1 This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Cal. 28 Local Rule 302(c)(21). 1 || Defendant Bonta’s motion (ECF No. 20) as an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for leave, and 2 || vacated the May 1, 2024, hearing. (ECF No. 21.) 3 Rule 15(a)(2) provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice 4 || so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). As a general matter, courts apply Rule 15(a) with “extreme 5 || liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir.2003). When 6 || determining whether to grant leave to amend, the court considers the following factors: (1) undue 7 || delay; (2) bad faith; (3) futility of amendment; and (4) prejudice to the opposing party. Sharkey v. 8 | O'Neal, 778 F.3d 767, 774 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). In 9 || the Ninth Circuit, courts liberally grant pro se plaintiffs leave to amend, as it is generally 10 || presumed that pro se plaintiffs are unskilled in the law and are more prone to pleading errors than 11 || those litigants who are represented by counsel. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (th Cir. 12 || 2000). This policy aligns with Rule 15’s underlying purpose of facilitating decisions on the 13 || merits, rather than on technicalities. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) 14 | (internal quotation marks omitted). 15 Here, there is no indication that allowing Plaintiff to amend the complaint would implicate 16 || any of the Forman factors. Accordingly, and considering Plaintiffs pro se status, the court 17 | GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint (ECF 18 || No. 16) will be deemed the operative complaint. In light of Plaintiff's amended complaint, 19 || Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 5, 8, 9) are DENIED as moot. 20 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 16), is 22 GRANTED; 23 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 5, 8, 9) are DENIED as moot; and 24 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to separately docket Plaintiff's proposed First 25 Amended Complaint as the operative complaint in this action. 26 | Dated: September 3, 2024 / a8 } i | Ld , a ce 7 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 28 | 4, mand2385.23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE