Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01276/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01276-2/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Jonathan Conrad Fuller,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1276 FCD PAN P 

vs. Order

Altchek, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner prosecuting this action without

counsel. Confronted by defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiff

seeks leave to file a third-amended complaint. Defendants

oppose.

A party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of

right before the filing of a responsive pleading; otherwise a

party may amend only by consent or with leave of court, which

must be freely given. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). By statute, a

court must review a prisoner’s complaint and dismiss all or part

Case 2:04-cv-01276-FCD-EFB Document 31 Filed 01/24/06 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

2

of it if the complaint does not state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2); 1915A. 

The question is whether plaintiff may proceed on the August

2, 2005, amended complaint without leave of court, or whether his

right to amend once as of right was exhausted when he first

amended. Since the order requiring amendment made pursuant to

section 1915A is “like” one made pursuant to a motion to dismiss

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and a such a motion is not a pleading,

I conclude plaintiff retained the right conferred by Rule 15. 

See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (language of

section 1915(e)(2) parallels language of 12(b)(6) and fifty

years’ precedent instructs court ordinarily should grant leave to

amend when dismissing pursuant to 12(b)(6)); Rule 7(a) (defining

pleadings and not including motions).

Since defendants have not filed and served a responsive

pleading, defendants’ July 29, 2005, motion to dismiss is denied

upon the ground it is moot. Defendants have 30 days to respond

to the August 2, 2005, amended complaint. 

So ordered.

Dated: January 24, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01276-FCD-EFB Document 31 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 2