Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00423/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00423-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERRY JOSEPH WOODS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHULTZ, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05-00423 AWI LJO P 

ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION TO

AMEND (Doc. 19.) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Perry Joseph Woods (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil action. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for

violation of civil rights by federal actors. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on March 31, 2005. On May 2, 2005, Plaintiff filed a

Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. The Court DISREGARDED that Motion as no

answer had yet been filed by the Defendants and permission was unnecessary. Although Plaintiff

filed two subsequent Motions to Amend, they were Motions to have the Court Amend an Order,

not a Motion to file an Amended Complaint. As a result, the Clerk of Court did not FILE the

submitted Amended Complaint and instead lodged it. 

A plaintiff may amend his complaint once “as a matter of course,” and without leave of

Court, before a response has been filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); Bonn v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). Leave of Court is

Case 1:05-cv-00423-AWI-GSA Document 21 Filed 07/14/06 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

2

required for all other amendments. Rule Civ. P. 15(a). While the Court should freely give leave

to amend if justice requires, the Court may deny leave to amend if the amendment would be

futile or subject to dismissal. Bonn, 59 F.3d at 845; Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th

Cir. 1991).

As noted above, the Defendants have not yet filed a responsive pleading as the Court has

yet to conduct a preliminary screening of the case. Thus, permission to file an Amended

Complaint is unnecessary. Accordingly, the Motion will again be DISREGARDED and the

Clerk of Court DIRECTED to file the lodged Amended Complaint. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion to Amend the Complaint is DISREGARDED; and 

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file the lodged Amended Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00423-AWI-GSA Document 21 Filed 07/14/06 Page 2 of 2