Lloyd v. Buzell ( 2019 )

1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT TACOMA 8 LARRY LLOYD, CASE NO. 3:18-CV-06038-RBL-DWC 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 10 v. LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 11 SHAWN BUZELL, ROCHA PASCUAL, KEITH A. HALL, 12 Defendant. 13 14 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Lloyd’s Motion for Leave to file his 15 First Amended Complaint. Dkt # 44. On August 20, 2019, the Magistrate Judge recommended 16 dismissing Lloyd’s case for his five-month failure to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 17 Dkt # 34. The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and dismissed the case 18 without prejudice on September 6, 2019. The Judgment dismissing the case was entered on 19 September 9, 2019. Dkt # 36. Following the dismissal, Lloyd filed motions for reconsideration, 20 which were subsequently denied by the Court on October 1, 2019. Dkt # 40. 21 While “Rule 15(a) establishes that leave to amend should be ‘freely given [when justice 22 so requires],’ post-judgment motions to amend are treated with greater skepticism than 23 prejudgment motions.” Alperin v. The Franciscan Order, No. C-99-4941 MMC, 2009 WL 24 1 3809805, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2009) (quoting Premo v. Martin, 119 F.3d 764, 772 (9th 2 Cir.1997)). The Ninth Circuit has held that “once judgment has been entered in a case, a motion 3 to amend the complaint can only be entertained if the judgment is first reopened under a motion 4 brought under Rule 59 or 60.” Lindauer v. Rogers, 91 F.3d 1355, 1357 (9th Cir. 1996), as 5 amended (Sept. 4, 1996); see, e.g., Premo, 119 F.3d at 772 (finding proper the district court’s 6 denial of leave to amend after summary judgment was granted where the party seeking post- 7 judgment leave to amend had ample opportunity to do so before judgment was entered). 8 Lloyd seeks to amend his complaint a month after the Court dismissed his case, and 9 nearly two weeks after the Court denied his Motions for Reconsideration. Although he had 10 ample time to do so, Lloyd never filed a motion for leave to amend his Complaint before the 11 final judgment was entered by the Court. Lloyd’s motion cannot be entertained by the Court at 12 this time because his motion for reconsideration was denied and the case was not reopened. 13 However, because Lloyd’s case was dismissed without prejudice, Lloyd can refile his lawsuit if 14 he wishes. The Motion is DENIED. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated this 11th day of October, 2019. 18 A 19 Ronald B. Leighton 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24