Opinion
1:13-cv-00816-GSA-PC
05-16-2015
OBIE CRISP, Plaintiff, v. WASCO STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND
(Doc. 25.)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT LODGED ON NOVEMBER 21, 2014
(Doc. 26.)
I. BACKGROUND
Obie Crisp ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on May 30, 2013. (Doc. 1.)
On June 24, 2013, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 5.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
On July 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 13.) The court screened the First Amended Complaint and issued an order on July 3, 2014, dismissing the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 23.) On July 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 24.)
On November 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and lodged a proposed Third Amended Complaint. (Doc. 25.)
II. LEAVE TO AMEND - RULE 15(a)
Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Id. Here, because Plaintiff has already amended the complaint more than once, Plaintiff requires leave of court to file a Third Amended Complaint.
"Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend 'shall be freely given when justice so requires.'" AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts "need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile." Id. The factor of "'[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.'" Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712, 713 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 (9th Cir. 1999)).
Plaintiff's Motion
Plaintiff requests leave to file a Third Amended Complaint to clarify his allegations and claims. Plaintiff asserts that he was recently diagnosed with a form of OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder), which explains why his thoughts and writing were always jumbled. Now, Plaintiff seeks to file a complaint that is more clear and precise.
Discussion
The court finds no bad faith or futility in Plaintiff's proposed amendment. The proposed Third Amended Complaint arises from the same events documented in the Second Amended Complaint. Because the Second Amended Complaint awaits the court's requisite screening and has not been served, there will be no undue delay or prejudice to Defendants in allowing Plaintiff to proceed with the Third Amended Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to amend shall be granted, and the Third Amended Complaint shall be filed.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to amend, filed on November 21, 2014, is GRANTED; and
2. The Clerk is directed to file the proposed Third Amended Complaint which was lodged on November 21, 2014. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 16 , 2015
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE