From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Green v. Chamberlain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 31, 2020
No. 2:19-CV-0109-WBS-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2:19-CV-0109-WBS-DMC-P

03-31-2020

VENCIL C. GREEN, Plaintiff, v. NASARIA CHAMBERLAIN, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff, a 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 first amended complaint. ECF No. 26.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days of serving the pleading or, if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, within 21 days after service of the responsive pleading, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), or within 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f) of the rules, whichever time is earlier, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). In all other situations, a party's pleadings may only be amended upon leave of court or stipulation of all the parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Where leave of court to amend is required and sought, the court considers the following factors: (1) whether there is a reasonable relationship between the original and amended pleadings; (2) whether the grant of leave to amend is in the interest of judicial economy and will promote the speedy resolution of the entire controversy; (3) whether there was a delay in seeking leave to amend; (4) whether the grant of leave to amend would delay a trial on the merits of the original claim; and (5) whether the opposing party will be prejudiced by amendment. See Jackson v. Bank of Hawai'i, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). Leave to amend should be denied where the proposed amendment is frivolous. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).

In this case, leave of court is required because more than 21days have elapsed since defendants filed their answer to the complaint and defendants have not stipulated to the proposed amendment. Plaintiff's motion consists of one sentence in which he asks the Court to permit amendment to the relief requested in his complaint. See ECF No. 26. Plaintiff does not provide a proposed amended complaint or offer any further explanation. Absent at least a proposed amended complaint, the Court cannot evaluate the factors outlined above. Plaintiff's motion is, therefore, denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2020

/s/_________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Green v. Chamberlain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 31, 2020
No. 2:19-CV-0109-WBS-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2020)
Case details for

Green v. Chamberlain

Case Details

Full title:VENCIL C. GREEN, Plaintiff, v. NASARIA CHAMBERLAIN, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 31, 2020

Citations

No. 2:19-CV-0109-WBS-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2020)