From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ayala v. Andreasen

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 22, 2006
No. CIV S-04-0903-RRB-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-04-0903-RRB-CMK-P.

February 22, 2006


ORDER


Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (Doc. 14).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her pleading ". . . once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Once a responsive pleading is filed, a party's pleadings may only be amended upon leave of court or stipulation of all the parties. See id. In this case, the docket reflects that plaintiff's original complaint was dismissed by the court sua sponte, with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, which was also dismissed by the court sua sponte, with leave to amend. Plaintiff then filed a second amended complaint pursuant to the court's order. Given the foregoing history, the third amended complaint that plaintiff currently seeks to file would be his first amendment "once as a matter of course . . ." As such, it is unnecessary for plaintiff to obtain leave of court to file a third amended complaint. The third amended complaint was filed on January 9, 2006, and will be reviewed by separate order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint is denied as unnecessary.


Summaries of

Ayala v. Andreasen

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 22, 2006
No. CIV S-04-0903-RRB-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2006)
Case details for

Ayala v. Andreasen

Case Details

Full title:MANUEL AYALA, Plaintiff, v. ANDREASEN, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 22, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-04-0903-RRB-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2006)