Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00056/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00056-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

RICK HAZELTINE,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANCES HICKS, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00056 LJO DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO FILE AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

[ECF No. 17]

Plaintiff Rick Hazeltine, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 15, 2014. The matter was 

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 

Rule 302.

On January 30, 2015, the Court screened the Complaint and determined that it stated a 

claim of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Ian Young, 

Benjamin Gamez, Rashaun Casper, Julius Oldan, Porfirio Sanchez Negrete, David Avilia, 

Rickey Smith, and Charles Ho. Plaintiff was notified that he could proceed on the above claim 

or file an amended complaint. On February 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of his willingness to 

proceed on the above claim. Therefore, on March 3, 2015, the Court issued a Findings and 

Recommendation that all other claims and defendants be dismissed, and the case proceed on 

Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force against the above-named defendants. Plaintiff did not file 

Case 1:14-cv-00056-DAD-GSA Document 26 Filed 06/04/15 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

objections. Accordingly, on April 23, 2015, the District Court adopted the Findings and 

Recommendation in full and ordered the matter to proceed on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive 

force. The Court dismissed all other claims, and Defendants Frances Hicks and Aldo Mendez 

from the action. 

On May 21, 2015, Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint. Rule 15(a) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course 

within 21 after serving the pleading, or if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is 

required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion 

under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In this case, Defendants 

filed answers to the complaint after Plaintiff moved to amend. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 15(a), 

Plaintiff may amend his complaint as a matter of course. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this 

order to file a First Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00056-DAD-GSA Document 26 Filed 06/04/15 Page 2 of 2