Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00510/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00510-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ESCOBEDO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:24-cv-00510-CDB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 6) 

Plaintiff Michael Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

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

I. INTRODUCTION

On December 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint 

(Doc. 6) and contemporaneously lodged the proposed first amended complaint (Doc. 7). 

Defendants have not been served or otherwise appeared in this action. 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to add claims against the Defendants for violations 

of Plaintiff’s rights under Title II of the American Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff explains that based on general education he received 

from a judge during a settlement conference held on November 19, 2024, in Case No. 1:24-cvCase 1:24-cv-00510-CDB Document 8 Filed 12/13/24 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

2

00512 (entitled Thomas c. Akau, et al.) regarding the requirement that each claim alleged against 

a defendant actually violate the specific law cited, Plaintiff believes that the “named Defendants 

[herein] may additionally — and may even more properly — be held liable under the ADA and 

Rehabilitation Act.” (Id. at 3). Plaintiff declares that “[s]ave for a few grammatical and 

contextual changes for clarification, the facts and factual allegations in [the] proposed [first 

amended complaint] are unchanged from the original complaint.” (Id.). Plaintiff declares that to 

his knowledge, “Defendants have not yet been served or responded. Thus, [he] believes that 

Defendants would not be prejudiced by the granting of this request.” (Id.).

Legal Standards Concerning Amendment

Leave to amend a pleading “is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court,” 

Pisciotta v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 1326, 1331 (9th Cir. 1996), and “[t]he court should 

freely give leave when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In exercising its “discretion, 

a court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits, 

rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.... Accordingly, Rule 15’s policy of favoring 

amendments to pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality.” United States v. Webb, 655 

F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal quotation marks & citations omitted). “But a district court 

need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is 

sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.” AmerisourceBergen 

Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).

Analysis

Plaintiff’s original complaint has not yet been screened by the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). Following review of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds granting leave to amend would 

not prejudice the opposing parties. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 951. The Court also 

finds that leave is not sought in bad faith nor would it produce an undue delay in this litigation. 

(Id.). Finally, the Court cannot find, at least at this point, that granting leave to amend would be 

futile. (Id.).

Plaintiff is advised that his motion does not operate to amend or supplement his original 

complaint. Rather, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa 

Case 1:24-cv-00510-CDB Document 8 Filed 12/13/24 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

Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, any amended complaint must be “complete in 

itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. 

Upon review of Plaintiff’s motion, including the proposed first amended complaint lodged 

simultaneously with this Court (Doc. 7), the undersigned finds good cause to grant the motion. 

See Local Rule 137(c). The Court shall proceed with screening Plaintiff’s operative complaint in 

due course.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for leave to amend and file a first amended complaint (Doc. 6) is 

GRANTED; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to FILE the first amended complaint lodged on 

December 10, 2024 (Doc. 7) and adjust the docket accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00510-CDB Document 8 Filed 12/13/24 Page 3 of 3