Opinion
21cv1427-LL-AGS
03-21-2022
ELOY MASCORRO, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO; PARK RANGER JOHN DOE; SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS 1-4; THE SAN DIEGO FIRE DEPARTMENT; EMTS 1-3, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
[ECF NO. 21]
HONORABLE LINDA LOPEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On March 12, 2021, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, moved the Court ex parte “to allow my complaint to be amended to properly name each defendant” and to “allow an extension of time to properly name defendants.” ECF No. 21. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Here, Plaintiff has not served his Complaint against any of the named defendants. See ECF No. 18. Plaintiff has also been granted permission to file documents and receive notifications using the Court's CM/ECF system without charge and in accordance with ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures. ECF No. 8 at 6-7. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion [ECF No. 21] is DENIED without prejudice as premature.
IT IS SO ORDERED.