Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01795/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01795-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONNIE FRANKLIN ONLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-01795-WBS-EFB (PC)

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s original complaint on potentially 

cognizable due process claims against defendants Davis and Dohoda, a potentially cognizable 

Fourth Amendment claim against defendant Davis, and a potentially cognizable retaliation claim 

against defendant John Doe. Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend his complaint in order to identify

the “John Doe” defendant as “Mr. M. Harrod” and to add a retaliation claim against defendant 

Davis. ECF No. 24. Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s motion to 

amend. ECF No. 25. However, they request an extension of time to file a responsive pleading. 

Id.

Rule 15(a)(1) provides that “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course 

within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) 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 

Case 2:22-cv-01795-WBS-EFB Document 26 Filed 05/25/23 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

Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Here, plaintiff moves to amend his complaint before 

any responsive pleading or motion has been served. Thus, plaintiff may amend his petition “once 

as a matter of course,” without the court’s leave. Plaintiff’s motion to amend is therefore denied 

as unnecessary. To properly substitute Mr. M. Harrod for the John Doe defendant and to add a 

retaliation claim against defendant Davis, however, plaintiff must file an amended complaint that 

is complete in itself without reference to the original complaint.

Because it appears likely that plaintiff will file an amended complaint, defendants’ request 

for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading is granted. In the event plaintiff files an 

amended complaint, the court will issue a screening order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 24) is denied as unnecessary; 

2. To facilitate plaintiff’s filing of an amended complaint that complies with this order, 

the Clerk of the Court is directed to send to plaintiff a copy of the original complaint,

without the exhibits (ECF No. 1 at 1-9); and 

3. Defendants’ request for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading (ECF No. 

25) is granted. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading within thirty days from the 

date of any order screening plaintiff’s anticipated amended complaint. If no amended 

complaint is filed, defendants shall file a responsive pleading within 45 days from the 

date of this order. 

Dated: May 25, 2023. 

Case 2:22-cv-01795-WBS-EFB Document 26 Filed 05/25/23 Page 2 of 2