Opinion
2:19-cv-00103-RFB-NJK
12-28-2020
DAVID L. REED, Plaintiff, v. BEAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER [DOCKET NO. 21]
Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Docket No. 21. The Court has considered Plaintiff's motion and Defendants' response. Docket Nos. 21, 23. No reply was filed. See Docket. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1.
Requests for leave to amend the complaint are generally governed by Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). There is a strong public policy in favor of permitting amendment. Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir. 1999). As such, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that Rule 15(a) is to be applied with “extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). Under Rule 15(a), courts consider various factors, including: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of the amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. See Id. at 1052. These factors do not carry equal weight, however, with prejudice being the most significant factor. See Id. The party opposing the amendment bears the burden of showing why leave should be denied. Desert Protective Council v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 927 F.Supp.2d 949, 962 (S.D. Cal. 2013).
Unless otherwise noted, references to “Rules” refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On July 1, 2020, United States District Judge Richard F. Boulware issued a screening order, finding that Plaintiff stated colorable due process claims against Defendants Bean, Fowler, and John Doe CERT officer. Docket No. 7 at 5. Judge Boulware found that Plaintiff's complaint alleged “that these defendants either unreasonably used mace on Plaintiff while he was laying down unresponsive or were in a position to prevent Plaintiff from being maced but unreasonably failed to prevent Plaintiff from being maced.” Id. Judge Boulware further found that Plaintiff's claims could proceed against Defendant John Doe CERT officer when Plaintiff learns this person's identity and moves to substitute his name. Id.
Defendants do not oppose the motion, but ask the Court to screen the proposed amended complaint because it “appears to attempt to add parties and new claims.” See Docket No. 23 at 2, 5. Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, however, does not allege new claims. Like Plaintiff's original complaint, the proposed amended complaint alleges due process violations. Specifically, the proposed amended complaint re-alleges that Defendants' use of mace constituted unreasonable punishment and that Defendants failed to protect Plaintiff. Docket No. 21 at 6-10. Further, the proposed amended complaint does not add new parties; it merely substitutes Correctional Officer Romero in place of the John DOE CERT officer defendant. Id. at 5.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is hereby GRANTED. Docket No. 21. The Clerk's Office shall file Plaintiff's first amended complaint, Docket No. 21 at 4-35, and send Plaintiff a courtesy copy of the first amended complaint. The Nevada Attorney General's Office shall file a notice advising the Court and Plaintiff if it accepts service for Defendant Romero, no later than January 4, 2021.
IT IS SO ORDERED.