Padilla v. Austin

Full title: CARMEN PADILLA and BRANDON DUVAL CONCEPCION Plaintiff, v. CORA D. AUSTIN…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: Nov 29, 2010

10-CV-4891 (DLI) (RLM) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2010)

Opinion

10-CV-4891 (DLI) (RLM).

November 29, 2010

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROANNE MANN, Magistrate Judge

On November 19, 2010, the Pro Se Clerk's Office received and filed a Second Amended Complaint from pro se plaintiff Carmen Padilla. As plaintiff did not have leave of the Court or written consent of defendants to further amend her complaint, ¹ the operative pleading in this case is her Amended Complaint, filed on November 15, 2010, ² which the United States Marshal's Service was previously ordered to serve on defendants. See Order (Nov. 17, 2010).

1 Under certain circumstances, a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1); after a pleading has been amended, further amendments require "the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).

2 The only "amendment" that the Court could discern is the attachment of additional exhibits.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York November 29, 2010