Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00327/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00327-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANJAY BHATNAGAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00327-MEJ 

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

AMEND COMPLAINT AND/OR FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 48

On May 19, 2015, the Court dismissed this case, finding that Plaintiff’s claims were 

untimely. Dkt. No. 46. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend 

and/or for Reconsideration. Dkt. No. 48. Although Defendant has not had the opportunity to 

respond to Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court notes that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides 

that the Court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(2). Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint contains additional facts and evidence 

that address the deficiencies noted in the Court’s May 19 Order. Plaintiff admits he had access to 

these facts when he filed the earlier complaints, but he was proceeding pro se at that time and 

contends he did not recognize the legal importance of the earlier efforts to submit his 

administrative tort claim. He also states that he did not include this evidence in opposition to the 

Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss because, under Rule 12(b)(6), it would have been improper for 

the Court to consider evidence beyond the pleadings. 

Without addressing the merits of Plaintiff’s arguments in support of his motion, the Court 

makes a preliminary finding that he may be able to proceed on his claims. Thus, rather than have 

the parties fully brief the matter as part of a motion for reconsideration, the Court shall permit 

Plaintiff to file his proposed amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court hereby REOPENS this 

Case 3:14-cv-00327-MEJ Document 53 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

case. Plaintiff shall file his Second Amended Complaint by June 4, 2015. Defendant shall file its 

responsive pleading by June 25, 2015. 

If Defendant files an answer, the Court shall conduct a Case Management Conference on 

July 23, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, 

CA 94102. This conference shall be attended by lead trial counsel for parties who are represented. 

No later than seven calendar days before the Case Management Conference, the parties shall file a 

Joint Case Management Statement containing the information in the Standing Order for All 

Judges in the Northern District of California, available at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/mejorders. The 

Joint Case Management Statement form may be obtained at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. 

If Defendant files a motion instead of an answer, the Case Management Conference shall be 

vacated pending resolution of Defendant’s motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00327-MEJ Document 53 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 2