Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05950/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05950-3/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

JAMES E. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-5950-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND

PURSUANT TO RULES 15(B) AND 15(C)

(Doc. 39) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

FILE IN SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT,

SUBMITTED AS AN ATTACHMENT TO

DOCUMENT 39

Plaintiff James E. Smith (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil action. On June 6, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to amend

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(b) and 15(c). Attached to the motion is plaintiff’s

proposed amended pleading.

Rule 15(b) addresses amendments of the pleadings to conform to evidence at trial. Plaintiff’s

reliance on Rule 15(b) is misplaced, as this case has neither been tried nor been set for trial.

Rule 15(c) addresses the relation back of an amended pleading to the date the original

pleading was filed. In situations in which an amendment would otherwise be barred by the statute

of limitations, relation back under Rule 15(c) prevents the amendment from being barred as

untimely. Plaintiff’s reliance on Rule 15(c) is misplaced, as it is not, in and of itself, a rule upon

which to base a motion seeking leave to amend. 

///

Case 1:04-cv-05950-OWW -LJO Document 47 Filed 09/28/05 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 1

 Plaintiff was granted a thirty day extension to file an amended complaint on May 5, 2005.

2

Plaintiff was ordered by the court to file a second amended complaint on January 19, 2005.

Plaintiff has not yet complied with the court’s order and his second amended complaint is overdue.

Due to the timing of the instant motion1 and the fact that the proposed amended complaint appears

for the most part to be complete within itself, the court shall direct the Clerk’s Office to file in

plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint and it shall be treated as the second amended complaint.

In a separate order issued concurrently with this order, the second amended complaint shall be

screened.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend pursuant to Rules 15(b) and 15(c), filed June

6, 2005, is DENIED; and

2. The Clerk’s Office shall detach from plaintiff’s motion his proposed amended

complaint (pages 3-a through 14 of document 39), and file and docket it as the

second amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05950-OWW -LJO Document 47 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 2