Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05018/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05018-2/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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

KAVIN MAURICE RHODES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

M. ROBINSON, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:02- CV F 5018 REC DLB P 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO FILE SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT

[DOC #54]

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Judgment was entered in this action on

February 4, 2003 after the District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendation granting defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. Plaintiff

filed a notice of appeal on February 19, 2003. On April 25, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

issued an opinion reversing the judgment and remanding the action to the District Court for further

proceedings. On May 11, 2005, this Court ordered to respond to the first amended complaint. 

Defendants filed an answer to the first amended complaint on June 3, 2005. However, on May 27,

2005, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file a second amended complaint. Defendants filed an

opposition to the motion on June 3, 2005.

Pursuant to Rule 15, “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

Case 1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB Document 74 Filed 05/10/06 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court.” Id. In this action, plaintiff has already amended

his complaint once as a matter of course under Rule 15(a). Therefore, any subsequent amendments

may be filed only by leave of the court. 

Rule 7 requires that an application to the court for leave to file an amended complaint must

“state with particularity the grounds therefor.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1). Plaintiff states in his request

that he would like to amend his complaint in that “several additional egregious acts of First

Amendment retaliation” have occurred. Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a second amended

complaint does not state with particularity the grounds for amendment and plaintiff does not attach a

copy of his proposed second amended complaint. For this reason, plaintiff’s request for leave to file

a second amended complaint is DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 9, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB Document 74 Filed 05/10/06 Page 2 of 2