Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01545/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01545-10/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX TABATABAEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. STANTORO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01545-LJO DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Document 43)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR STATUS AS MOOT

(Document 46)

Plaintiff Alex Tabatabaee (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s 

May 1, 2015, First Amended Complaint on the following claims: (1) conspiracy under section 1983 

against all Defendants; and (2) retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against all 

Defendants. 

Defendants filed an answer on February 22, 2016, and the action is currently in discovery.

On April 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a timely motion for leave to file a Second Amended 

Complaint. Defendants did not oppose the motion and it is therefore deemed submitted pursuant to 

Local Rule 230(l).

DISCUSSION

“Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so 

requires.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) 

Case 1:14-cv-01545-LJO-GSA Document 47 Filed 05/25/16 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

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the 

amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue 

delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id. The factor of “‘[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is insufficient 

to justify denying a motion to amend.’” Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 

708, 712-13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 (9th Cir. 1999)).

Plaintiff seeks to amend to add the name of a previously unknown Doe Defendant and to cure 

perceived deficiencies. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint

and there is no indication that the amendments will prejudice Defendants, nor are they sought in bad 

faith. There is also no indication that the amendments will cause undue delay, and they do not 

appear to be futile.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is 

GRANTED.1 The Clerk of Court SHALL FILE Plaintiff’s lodged Second Amended Complaint. 

Plaintiff’s motion for status is DENIED AS MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

 Plaintiff will be directed on service for Defendant Yoder by separate order.

Case 1:14-cv-01545-LJO-GSA Document 47 Filed 05/25/16 Page 2 of 2