Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00109/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00109-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VENCIL C. GREEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

NASARIA CHAMBERLAIN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-CV-0109-WBS-DMC-P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to file first amended 

complaint. ECF No. 26. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her 

pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days of serving the pleading or, if the pleading is 

one to which a responsive pleading is required, within 21 days after service of the responsive 

pleading, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), or within 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 

12(b), (e), or (f) of the rules, whichever time is earlier, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). In all 

other situations, a party’s pleadings may only be amended upon leave of court or stipulation of all 

the parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Where leave of court to amend is required and sought, 

the court considers the following factors: (1) whether there is a reasonable relationship between 

the original and amended pleadings; (2) whether the grant of leave to amend is in the interest of 

Case 2:19-cv-00109-WBS-DMC Document 29 Filed 03/31/20 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

judicial economy and will promote the speedy resolution of the entire controversy; (3) whether 

there was a delay in seeking leave to amend; (4) whether the grant of leave to amend would delay 

a trial on the merits of the original claim; and (5) whether the opposing party will be prejudiced 

by amendment. See Jackson v. Bank of Hawai’i, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). Leave to 

amend should be denied where the proposed amendment is frivolous. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. 

Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).

In this case, leave of court is required because more than 21days have elapsed

since defendants filed their answer to the complaint and defendants have not stipulated to the 

proposed amendment. Plaintiff’s motion consists of one sentence in which he asks the Court to 

permit amendment to the relief requested in his complaint. See ECF No. 26. Plaintiff does not 

provide a proposed amended complaint or offer any further explanation. Absent at least a 

proposed amended complaint, the Court cannot evaluate the factors outlined above. Plaintiff’s 

motion is, therefore, denied without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 31, 2020

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-00109-WBS-DMC Document 29 Filed 03/31/20 Page 2 of 2