Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06313/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06313-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE D. RANDLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEIDA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 6313 REC SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT TO

CONDUCT SCREENING (Doc. 30) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND

COMPLAINT (Doc. 29) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

RETURN LODGED DOCUMENTS TO

PLAINTIFF

 Willie D. Randle (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On June 21, 2005, this Court directed the U.S. Marshall to re-serve the Complaint and

Amended Complaint. Plaintiff, on June 27, 2005, filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint and

lodged an Amended Complaint. On June 30, 2005, Defendants requested the Court conduct a

screening of the case under Section 1915A. 

A. Motion for Court to Conduct Screening

Defendants, appearing specially, move the Court to conduct a screening of the case and

consider the Amended Complaint submitted by Plaintiff as being filed “as a matter of course”

under Rule 15. 

Rule 15 permits the filing of an Amended Complaint once “as a matter of course,” and

without leave of Court, before a response has been filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15(a). Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); Bonn v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). Leave of Court

Case 1:03-cv-06313-LJO -SMS Document 32 Filed 08/02/05 Page 1 of 3
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

1The Court has, at any given time, literally hundreds of Section 1983 cases filed by incarcerated individuals. 

Thus, the Court is well aware of its obligations under the PLRA and a request for a routine screening, as filed by

Counsel here, is unnecessary. 

2

is required for all other amendments. Rule Civ. P. 15(a). A review of the docket shows that

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint once, as a matter of course and without leave of court on

October 6, 2003. Thus, Plaintiff lodged his proposed Second Amended Complaint with the

Court pending resolution of the Motion to Amend. As such, there is no “filed” complaint to

screen under Section 1915A.1 

Accordingly, Defendant’s Request for the Court to Conduct a Screening is DENIED. 

Defendants are required to submit an Answer within the time frames allotted by the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

B. Motion to Amend

Rule 15(d) provides that “upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice

and upon such terms as are just, permit the party to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth

transactions or occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought

to be supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Rule 7 requires that an application to the court for

leave to file an amended complaint must “state with particularity the grounds therefor.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 7(b)(1). 

Plaintiff requests permission to submit another amended complaint that includes language

regarding his pain and suffering and to include a request for follow-up treatment. It appears from

this that Plaintiff’s proposed amendment serves the purpose of clarifying the basis of his claims

by including that he suffered and continues to suffer pain in his ears and to include, in his prayer

for relief, a request for follow up treatment. 

Pursuant to Rule 54(c), “every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in

whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in the

party’s pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c) (emphasis added). Because plaintiff is not bound by

the prayer for damages set forth in his Amended Complaint, it is unnecessary for him to

supplement his Complaint to modify his prayer for damages against Defendants. See,

Case 1:03-cv-06313-LJO -SMS Document 32 Filed 08/02/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Bontkowski v. Smith, 305 F.3d 757, 762 (7th Cir. 2002); Pension Benefit Guar., Corp. v. East

Dayton Tool and Die Co., 14 F.3d 1122, 1127 (6th Cir. 1994); Z Channel Ltd. P’ship v. Home

Box Office, Inc., 931 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1991). For this reason, Plaintiff’s Motion to

Amend is DENIED. The Court will DIRECT the Clerk of Court to return to Plaintiff the lodged

Amended Complaint submitted to the Court on May 3, 2005. 

C. Order

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for the Court to Conduct Screening is DENIED;

2. The Motion to Amend is DENIED;

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to return to Plaintiff the lodged Amended

Complaint dated May 3, 2005. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06313-LJO -SMS Document 32 Filed 08/02/05 Page 3 of 3