Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00916/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00916-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES EUSSE, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARCO VITELA, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 13-CV-916 BEN (NLS)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION FOR

ORDER:

1. GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

2. DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

(Dkt. Nos. 18 and 21.)

On February 28, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss portions of Plaintiff’s

first amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 18.) In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to

file a second amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 21.) The Court issued an order instructing

Defendants to file a response by June 6, 2014, if they wished to oppose Plaintiff’s

motion. (Dkt. No. 22.) No response was filed.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), the Court should “freely give leave

[to amend] when justice so requires.” Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, and for good

cause shown, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a

second amended complaint be GRANTED, and RECOMMENDED that Defendants’

motion to dismiss be DENIED as moot.

1 13-CV-916 BEN (NLS)

Case 3:13-cv-00916-BEN-NLS Document 23 Filed 06/10/14 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

The undersigned submits this Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1) to the United States District Judge assigned to this case.

IT IS ORDERED that no later than June 24, 2014, any party to this action may

file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document

should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with

the Court and served on all parties no later than July 8, 2014. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those

objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir.

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 10, 2014

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

2 13-CV-916 BEN (NLS)

Case 3:13-cv-00916-BEN-NLS Document 23 Filed 06/10/14 Page 2 of 2