Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05448/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05448-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANTONIO CORTEZ BUCKLEY,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, ET AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 14-cv-05448-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

AMEND; DENYING PENDING MOTION TO 

DISMISS AS MOOT

Plaintiff Antonio Cortez Buckley (“Buckley”) brings this civil rights action against 

Defendants County of San Mateo, et al. (“San Mateo”) alleging retaliation, deliberate indifference 

to medical need, and excessive force under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. 

On January 30, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss this case on the basis that plaintiff’s 

complaint fails under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 17.) Alternatively, 

defendants seek to strike material in the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(f), or to require a more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). 

(Id.) 

Buckley did not timely file an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and defendants filed a 

notice of non-opposition on February 20, 2015. (Dkt. No. 19.) In that notice, defendants also 

noted that plaintiff had twenty-one days after service of the motion to dismiss to amend his 

pleading as a matter of course, and that the deadline for such amendment had run. (Id.) 

Defendants further requested that Buckley not be allowed leave to file an opposition or to amend 

his complaint. (Id.) 

On March 2, 2015, Buckley filed a motion to amend his complaint in order to cure an 

unidentified “defect.” (Dkt. No. 23.) The local rules of this district require that any such motion 

be accompanied by the entire proposed amended pleading. N.D. Cal. L. Civ. R. 10-1. Buckley’s 

Case 4:14-cv-05448-YGR Document 25 Filed 03/11/15 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 Californi

a

filing did not comport with this rule. However, given that as a pro se litigant, the Court affords 

Buckley considerable leniency, and the general policy that leave to amend be freely granted when 

justice so requires, the Court GRANTS Buckley’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. 

The Court further notes that as a pro se litigant, Buckley may seek assistance at the Court’s 

Legal Help Center. The Legal Help Center may assist persons who do not have lawyers if they 

make an appointment. The Legal Help Center’s phone number is (415) 782-8982 and its website 

is http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. 

Accordingly, the motion to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date 

of this Order to file his amended complaint. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED as 

moot. 

This terminates Docket Nos. 17 and 23. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 11, 2015 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:14-cv-05448-YGR Document 25 Filed 03/11/15 Page 2 of 2