Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01420/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01420-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMAN GERALD DANIELS, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

STU SHERMAN,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01420-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO MERGE 

CASES

(ECF No. 13)

ORDER REGARDING OPERATIVE 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Norman Gerald Daniels, III (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and 

in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint 

has not yet been screened. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for rewrite and merger 

of all issues and cases, filed March 6, 2019. (ECF No. 13.)

In his motion, Plaintiff requests the merger of the instant action with Case No. 1:18-cv01499-LJO-EPG, explaining that some of the issues in that case are duplicated in this action. 

Upon review of the docket in that case, it appears the action was closed, as duplicative of this 

action, shortly after Plaintiff filed his motion for merger of the cases. As noted in the order 

adopting findings and recommendations issued in that case, the court found that the two actions 

were duplicative, and therefore merger or consolidation of the two cases was unnecessary. See

Docket No. 18, Case No. 1:18-cv-01499-LJO-EPG (E.D. Cal.). The undersigned agrees, and the 

motion is denied accordingly.

Case 1:18-cv-01420-AWI-BAM Document 15 Filed 02/19/20 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

Plaintiff also filed a first amended complaint on July 17, 2019. (ECF No. 14.) Though 

there is no motion attached, the Court construes the filing as a motion for leave to file an amended 

complaint, together with the proposed first amended complaint.

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules 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). “Rule 15(a) 

is very liberal and leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires.” 

AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and 

quotation omitted). 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 

litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id.

In considering the relevant factors, the Court finds no evidence of prejudice, bad faith, 

undue delay in litigation, or futility. Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened and no 

defendants have been served or have appeared in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to 

amend shall be granted.

1

 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to merge cases, (ECF No. 13), is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend, and the first amended complaint filed July 17, 2019, 

(ECF No. 14), is the operative complaint in this action; and

3. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint will be screened in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 The Court notes, however, that the first amended complaint remains subject to screening, 

including any analysis of whether the claims asserted violate principles of res judicata.

Case 1:18-cv-01420-AWI-BAM Document 15 Filed 02/19/20 Page 2 of 2