(PC) Portillo v. City of Shafter ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIO R. RODAS PORTILLO, Case No. 1:23-cv-00920-JLT-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND 13 v. (Doc. 20) 14 CITY OF SHAFTER, et al., ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 15 Defendants. FILE PLAINTIFF’S LODGED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 16 17 Plaintiff Mario R. Rodas Portillo, former county jail inmate, is proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 27, 2023, the Court 19 screened Plaintiff’s original complaint and found that it failed to comply with Federal Rule of 20 Civil Procedure 8 and failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. The Court granted Plaintiff 21 leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff filed his first 22 amended complaint on August 23, 2023. (Doc. 9.) The first amended complaint has not yet been 23 screened. 24 On October 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file an amended 25 complaint. (Doc. 20.) Plaintiff asserts that he “left out ‘City of Shafter” on his amended 26 complaint,” and he has submitted a copy of his amended complaint with the “error fixed.” (Id.) 27 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint was lodged on the Court’s docket concurrent with the 28 instant motion. (Doc. 21.) 1 DISCUSSION 2 Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend its pleading 3 once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, a party 4 may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave shall 5 be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and 6 leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. 7 Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and quotation omitted). However, 8 courts “need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; 9 (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id. 10 In considering the relevant factors, the Court finds no evidence of prejudice, bad faith, 11 undue delay in litigation, or futility. The Court previously granted Plaintiff leave to amend, 12 Plaintiff's first amended complaint has not yet been screened, no defendants have been served or 13 appeared in this action, and the Court will screen any amended complaint under the applicable 14 standard. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to amend will be granted. The Clerk of the Court will 15 be directed to file Plaintiff’s lodged second amended complaint. 16 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 17 For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 18 1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 20) is granted. 19 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file Plaintiff’s lodged second amended complaint 20 (Doc. 21.) 21 3. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s second amended complaint in due course. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: September 17, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28