Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00947/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00947-6/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

ROBERT D. JOHNSON, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

DR. YULIT, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-00947-GSA-PC

ORDER FOR CLERK TO FILE 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

WHICH WAS LODGED ON 

NOVEMBER 14, 2013

(Doc. 24.)

ORDER RE MOTION REQUESTING 

STATUS AND PERMISSION TO FILE 

SUMMONSES

(Doc. 22.)

I. BACKGROUND

Robert D. Johnson (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on June 1, 2012, at the 

United States District Court for the Central District of California. (Doc. 1.) On June 6, 2012, 

the case was transferred to the Fresno Division of the Eastern District. (Doc. 4.) On June 19, 

2012, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '

636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 9.) Therefore, pursuant to 

Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall 

conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge 

is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

On January 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 21.) On May 

9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a status update for his case and requesting 

Case 1:12-cv-00947-SAB Document 25 Filed 11/20/13 Page 1 of 3
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

permission “to file summons.” (Doc. 22.) On November 14, 2013, Plaintiff lodged a proposed 

Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 24.)

II. LEAVE TO AMEND – RULE 15(a)

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 once, Plaintiff requires leave of court to 

file a Second 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)). 

Discussion

Plaintiff submitted a proposed Second Amended Complaint eight months after he filed 

the First Amended Complaint. The court now has before it the First Amended Complaint and 

the lodged Second Amended Complaint. The court has examined the First Amended 

Complaint and the Second Amended Complaint and finds that they both concern Plaintiff’s 

medical care claims against prison staff at Corcoran State Prison for inadequate treatment for 

his diabetes. Plaintiff has added defendants to the Second Amended Complaint for claims 

which appear to be related to those in the First Amended Complaint. Therefore, the court finds 

good cause to allow Plaintiff to proceed with the Second Amended Complaint. The court finds 

no evidence that Plaintiff seeks to amend in bad faith, or that allowing the amendment 

prejudices the defendants, produces an undue delay in the litigation, or is futile. Therefore, the 

Case 1:12-cv-00947-SAB Document 25 Filed 11/20/13 Page 2 of 3
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

court shall allow Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint at this stage of the proceedings, 

and the Second Amended Complaint shall supercede the First Amended Complaint. See Lacey 

v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). 

III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR STATUS

This order shall resolve Plaintiff’s request for status of his case, filed on May 9, 2013. 

With respect to Plaintiff’s request “to file summons,” Plaintiff is advised that it is not yet time 

for service of process in this case. Before service can proceed, the court is required to screen 

the Second Amended Complaint to determine if it contains cognizable claims upon which 

Plaintiff may proceed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court shall not direct the United States 

Marshal to serve process upon defendants unless the court finds that Plaintiff has stated 

cognizable claims. Until that time, Plaintiff is not required to do anything to initiate service. 

The court shall screen the Second Amended Complaint in due time.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint; 

2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to file the Second Amended Complaint which was 

lodged by Plaintiff on November 14, 2013; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion requesting status and requesting permission to file 

summonses, filed on May 9, 2013, is RESOLVED by this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

Case 1:12-cv-00947-SAB Document 25 Filed 11/20/13 Page 3 of 3