Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01820/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01820-6/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCO PEREZ,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

D. G. ADAMS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:11-cv-01820-GSA-PC

 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

TO CHANGE THE FIRST PAGE OF THE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 32.)

I. BACKGROUND

Marco Perez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on November 1, 2011. (Doc. 1.) The court screened the Complaint 

and issued an order on May 30, 2014, requiring Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or 

notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the court. 

(Doc. 7.) On June 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed written notice that he did not wish to file an 

amended complaint, and wished to proceed only against defendants Schneider, Carter, 

Pimental, and Byrum for use of excessive force and deliberate indifference to medical needs. 

(Doc. 8.) The case proceeded with Plaintiff’s original Complaint, against defendants Sergeant 

Schneider, Sergeant Carter, Correctional Officer (C/O) Pimentel, and C/O Byrum 

(“Defendants”), for use of excessive force and deliberate indifference to medical needs, in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 

 

1 On June 18, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from the 

Complaint, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 9.) 

Case 1:11-cv-01820-BAM Document 33 Filed 06/17/15 Page 1 of 3
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

On September 30, 2014, defendants Schneider, Carter, Byrum, and Pimental filed an 

Answer. (Doc. 18.) The parties to this action have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Docs. 4, 26.)

On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the Complaint. (Doc. 24.) On 

May 18, 2015, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for limited purpose. (Doc. 29.) On June 8, 

2015, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which awaits the court’s requisite screening 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Doc. 30.) 

On June 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request to make corrections to the first page of the 

First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 32.)

II. LOCAL RULE 220 AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 15(a) -

AMENDING THE COMPLAINT

Local Rule 220 provides, in part:

Unless prior approval to the contrary is obtained from the Court, every 

pleading to which an amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right 

or has been allowed by court order shall be retyped and filed so that it is 

complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading. No 

pleading shall be deemed amended or supplemented until this Rule has been 

complied with. All changed pleadings shall contain copies of all exhibits 

referred to in the changed pleading.

Plaintiff seeks to replace the first page of the First Amended Complaint with a different 

first page which Plaintiff has submitted to the court for review. Plaintiff may not amend the 

First Amended Complaint in this manner. Under Rule 220, Plaintiff may not amend the First 

Amended Complaint by adding information piecemeal after the First Amended Complaint has 

been filed. To add information or correct an error in the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff 

must file a new Second Amended Complaint which is complete within itself. 

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party=s 

pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. 

Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse 

party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Here, 

because Plaintiff has already amended the complaint, Plaintiff requires leave of court to file a 

Second Amended Complaint.

Case 1:11-cv-01820-BAM Document 33 Filed 06/17/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

ARule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend >shall be freely given when justice so 

requires.=@ AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 

2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts Aneed 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 A>[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)).

Discussion

The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s proposed new first page for the First Amended 

Complaint and finds the only discernible difference to be that the proposed new page uses a 

case caption naming multiple defendants, whereas the existing first page uses the case caption 

Marco Perez v. D. G. Adams, et al. Allowing Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint 

with a different caption would serve no useful purpose, because the court shall continue to use 

the caption Marco Perez v. D. G. Adams, et al. which was assigned to this case when it was 

opened. Thus, allowing Plaintiff to replace the first page as proposed would be futile. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request shall be denied.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to make corrections to the first page of the First Amended 

Complaint is DENIED; and

2. The First Amended Complaint shall be screened in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01820-BAM Document 33 Filed 06/17/15 Page 3 of 3