Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01089/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01089-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Armando Coronado, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

Janet K. Napolitano, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1089-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Amended Complaint as of Right

(“Motion”) (Dkt. 50). Defendants oppose the Motion (Dkt. 55).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit challenging the Arizona statutory scheme governing the

right to vote of those convicted of felonies. (Dkt. 1, Compl.) Defendants Purcell and

Rodriguez answered the complaint (Dkts. 24, 27), and Defendants Napolitano and Brewer

moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

(Dkts. 22, 33). The Court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the action without

prejudice. (Dkt. 48, Order dated Jan. 22, 2008.) Plaintiffs now seek to file an amended

complaint. (Dkt. 50.)

//

//

Case 2:07-cv-01089-SMM Document 58 Filed 04/30/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

DISCUSSION

A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course before being served

with a responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). A motion to dismiss is not a

responsive pleading. Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984). “Neither

the filing nor granting of such a motion before answer terminates the right to amend; an

order of dismissal denying leave to amend at that stage is improper, and a motion for

leave to amend (though unnecessary) must be granted if filed.” Breier v. N. Cal. Bowling

Proprietors’ Ass’n, 316 F.2d 787, 790 (9th Cir. 1963); Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well

Furniture Co., Inc., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986). When an action is brought

against several defendants, and not all have served an answer, a plaintiff may serve an

amended complaint affecting all defendants as a matter of course. See 6 Charles A.

Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1481 (2d ed.).

The Court’s granting of Defendants’ motion to dismiss did not affect Plaintiffs’

right to amend as a matter of course. Brier, 316 F.2d at 790. Therefore the Motion must

be granted. Id. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Amended

Complaint as of Right (Dkt. 50). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to reopen this

matter and file Plaintiffs’ lodged proposed amended complaint (Dkt. 51).

DATED this 30th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01089-SMM Document 58 Filed 04/30/08 Page 2 of 2