From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. California
Mar 26, 2008
No. C 06-02150 SBA (PR), (Docket nos. 35, 40) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2008)

Opinion

No. C 06-02150 SBA (PR), (Docket nos. 35, 40).

March 26, 2008


ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO SCREEN AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A


Plaintiff Thomas Eugene Moore is a prisoner of the State of California who is currently incarcerated at High Desert State Prison. He filed this personal injury action in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Monterey alleging that he was injured by tobacco products while incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison from June 19, 2001 to July 1, 2005. Plaintiff named as Defendants: Access SecurePak (the alleged retailer of the tobacco products Plaintiff used), Lane Limited, Brown Williamson Tobacco Corporation (Brown Williamson), as well as various SVSP prison officials who purportedly participated in the supply of tobacco and the denial of Plaintiff's administrative claims. Defendant Warden Mike Evans removed the action to federal court on the ground that Plaintiff alleged a violation of his civil rights under federal law. Only Defendant Evans has filed an answer.

On June 21, 2006, Defendants Lane Limited and Brown Williamson moved for dismissal of this action due to insufficiency of process and service of process pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5). On September 15, 2006, Defendant Access SecurePak moved for dismissal on the same grounds. Plaintiff opposed Defendants' motions to dismiss.

In an Order dated March 30, 2007, the Court denied the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Lane Limited, Brown Williamson, and Access SecurePak.

Before the Court are Plaintiff's requests for leave to file an amended complaint and for the Court to screen the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

The answer filed by Defendant Evans cut off Plaintiff's right to amend as a matter of right. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Therefore, Plaintiff can now amend only with leave of court or with the consent of the opposing party. See id. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) is to be applied liberally in favor of amendments, however, and leave is to be freely given when justice so requires. See Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994). In his motion for leave to amend, Plaintiff states that he has "typed the civil complaint in a legible manner, made corrections, and has corrected Federal causes of actions to be more explicitly alleged within the pleadings since the case has been removed to the Federal Court." (Mot. for Leave to Amend at 2.) In the interests of justice, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend (docket no. 35) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the document attached to Plaintiff's motion, which is labeled "First Amended Civil Lawsuit Complaint," and docket the aforementioned document as Plaintiff's "First Amended Complaint." The Clerk is further directed to mark the First Amended Complaint as filed on May 14, 2007, the date it was received by the Court.

Plaintiff's motion for the Court to screen the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (docket no. 40) is also GRANTED. The Court will review Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in a separate written Order.

This Order terminates Docket nos. 35 and 40.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Moore v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. California
Mar 26, 2008
No. C 06-02150 SBA (PR), (Docket nos. 35, 40) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2008)
Case details for

Moore v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, Corp.

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS EUGENE MOORE, Plaintiff, v. BROWN WILLIAMSON TOBACCO, CORPORATION…

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

Date published: Mar 26, 2008

Citations

No. C 06-02150 SBA (PR), (Docket nos. 35, 40) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2008)