Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01582/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01582-7/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

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

ALEJANDRO JOSE MORALES,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

H. SHERWOOD, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-01582-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 22.)

ORDER STRIKING AMENDED 

COMPLAINT LODGED ON JUNE 23, 2014

(Doc. 24.)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE A 

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AS 

INSTRUCTED BY THIS ORDER

I. BACKGROUND

Alejandro Jose Morales (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on October 1, 2013. (Doc. 1.) On November 8, 2013, the court issued 

an order striking the Complaint for lack of Plaintiff’s signature, with leave to amend. (Doc. 8.) 

On December 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, bearing his signature. 

(Doc. 9.) The court screened the First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 

issued an order on March 5, 2014, requiring Plaintiff to either file a Second Amended 

Complaint or notify the court of his willingness to proceed with the claims found cognizable by 

Case 1:13-cv-01582-DAD-EPG Document 26 Filed 06/24/14 Page 1 of 4
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

the court. (Doc. 12.) On April 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 

19.)

On January 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and 

lodged an Amended Complaint. (Docs. 22, 24.)

II. RULE 15(a) - LEAVE TO AMEND

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the 

party=s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written 

consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Id. Here, 

because Plaintiff has already amended the complaint twice, Plaintiff requires leave of court to 

file a Third Amended Complaint.

ARule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend >shall be freely given when justice so 

requires.=@ AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 

2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts Aneed 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 the litigation; or (4) is futile.@ Id. The factor of A>[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is 

insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.=@ Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, 

Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712,13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 

(9th Cir. 1999)). 

A. Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to identify a Doe Defendant named in the Second 

Amended Complaint. Plaintiff asserts that since the filing of the complaint, he has learned that 

the name of the Doe Defendant is Ruben S. Felix.

B. Discussion

The court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint and the lodged Amended 

Complaint. (Docs. 22, 24.) The lodged Amended Complaint does not bear Plaintiff’s signature 

and does not appear to include any of the changes proposed by Plaintiff. Therefore, the lodged 

Amended Complaint shall be stricken from the record.

Case 1:13-cv-01582-DAD-EPG Document 26 Filed 06/24/14 Page 2 of 4
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

The court finds no evidence of prejudice, bad faith, undue delay in the litigation, or 

futility in allowing Plaintiff to amend the complaint for the purpose of identifying a Doe 

Defendant. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to amend shall be granted, and Plaintiff shall be 

granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint within thirty days. 

Although Plaintiff has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not for the purpose of 

adding new allegations or claims. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the complaint for the sole 

purpose of identifying a Doe Defendant.

Plaintiff is reminded that an amended complaint supercedes the [prior] complaint, 

Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F 3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be 

complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading, Local Rule 220. 

Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the 

involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be 

clearly and boldly titled AThird Amended Complaint,@ refer to the appropriate case number, and 

be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff=s motion to amend, filed on June 23, 2014, is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint lodged on June 23, 2014, is STRICKEN from 

the record;

3. The Clerk=s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file 

a Third Amended Complaint, as instructed by this order;

5. Plaintiff shall caption the amended complaint AThird Amended Complaint@ and 

refer to the case number 1:13-cv-01582-AWI-GSA-PC; 

6. Plaintiff may not add any new allegations or claims to this action via his

amended complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the 

amended complaint; and

Case 1:13-cv-01582-DAD-EPG Document 26 Filed 06/24/14 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

7. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that 

this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01582-DAD-EPG Document 26 Filed 06/24/14 Page 4 of 4