Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02090/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02090-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAROLYN CARLTON 

BROCKMEIER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2090 MCE EFB PS

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPT., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was before the

undersigned on May 16, 2007, for a status conference and for hearing on plaintiff’s motion to

amend. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On February 26, 2007, the undersigned granted plaintiff’s request for additional time to

file a motion for leave to amend, and set the motion for hearing on May 9, 2007, which was later

continued to May 16, 2007. Although that order instructed plaintiff to file a motion for leave to

amend the complaint within forty-five days, plaintiff never filed the motion. Instead, she simply

filed a first amended complaint. 

Defendants, who had previously filed an answer, moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) to

strike the first amended complaint. An amended complaint filed without leave of court, when so

Case 2:05-cv-02090-MCE -KJN Document 50 Filed 05/22/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

required, is without legal effect. Ritzer v. Gerovicap Pharmaceutical Corp., 162 F.R.D. 642,

644-45 (D. Nev. 1995) (citing Hoover v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 855 F.2d 1538, 1544 (11th

Cir. 1988)). Here, plaintiff was required to obtain leave of court to file the amended complaint

because an answer was on file. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, defendants’ motion to strike is

not the proper procedural device to seek dismissal of a complaint. Ritzer, 162 F.R.D. at 644

(citations omitted). 

Nonetheless, for the sake of efficiency, the undersigned has considered defendants’

motion to strike and hereby denies it. As explained below, the court construes plaintiff’s filing

as a request for leave to amend under Rule 15(a) and grants the motion. Defendants’

futility/immunity argument will be address in either a motion for summary judgment or a motion

to dismiss.

The court has discretion to deem an untimely amended pleading served without judicial

permission “as properly introduced when the court would have granted leave to amend had it

been sought.” Ritzer, 162 F.R.D. at 644 (citations omitted).

Rule 15(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

interpret . . . Rule 15(a) very liberally. . . .” Ritzer, 162 F.R.D. at 644 (citing Foman v. Davis,

371 U.S. 178 (1962); Schlacter-Jones v. General Tel. of California, 936 F.2d 435, 443 (9th Cir.

1991); United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979-80 (9th Cir. 1981)). 

In determining whether justice requires a court to grant leave to amend, courts commonly

consider four factors: (1) bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant; (2) undue delay

in filing the motion; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; and (4) the futility of the proposed

amendment. Ritzer, 162 F.R.D. at 644 (citing Roth v. Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 628 (9th Cir.

1991)). “The party opposing the motion for leave to amend a complaint bears the burden of

showing prejudice.” Ritzer, 162 F.R.D. at 644 (citing DCD Programs v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183,

186 (9th Cir. 1987)).

Case 2:05-cv-02090-MCE -KJN Document 50 Filed 05/22/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Here, defendants have offered no substantive argument as to why plaintiff should not be

granted leave to amend the complaint. The first amended complaint lodged by plaintiff is nearly

identical to the originally filed complaint, except that plaintiff now seeks to add as a defendant

Solano County Building Inspector/Compliance Officer David James, individually and in his

official capacity. The court, although strongly disfavoring plaintiff’s failure to follow applicable

rules and court orders, finds no evidence of bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of plaintiff,

nor does it discern any prejudice to the opposing party. Defendants’ motion to strike, deemed an

opposition to leave to amend, does not address the issue of futility. However, at oral argument

defendants argued that the amendment to add an additional party will ultimately be futile

because of qualified immunity. Defendants may address this issue by an appropriate dispositive

motion.

For these reasons, the court hereby construes the lodged first amended complaint as a

motion for leave to amend, grants that motion, and deems the first amended complaint as

properly introduced. Plaintiff shall promptly serve the first amended complaint in accordance

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and file proof of service of such. Accordingly, the

hearing on defendants’ motion to strike set for May 23, 2007, is vacated. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that further failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, this district’s local rules, and court orders may result in sanctions, including a

recommendation of dismissal. See Local Rule 11-110. Plaintiff has indicated her intention to

retain counsel. Plaintiff shall promptly notify the court upon such retention.

Given the addition of another defendant to this action, the court declines to issue a

scheduling order at this time. A continued status conference is set for August, 1, 2007. 

In accordance with the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants’ motion to strike the amended complaint is denied; 

2. The lodged first amended complaint is construed as a motion for leave to amend, that

motion is granted, and the first amended complaint is deemed properly introduced; and, 

Case 2:05-cv-02090-MCE -KJN Document 50 Filed 05/22/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

3. The hearing on defendants’ motion to strike set for May 23, 2007, is vacated, and a

further status conference is set for August 1, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 25. 

DATED: May 21, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02090-MCE -KJN Document 50 Filed 05/22/07 Page 4 of 4