Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01227/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01227-4/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

JOSE LEDESMA, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. TYREE, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-01227-AWI-GSA-PC

 

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS ENTERED ON 

JUNE 24, 2016

(ECF No. 19.)

ORDER FOR CLERK TO FILE THIRD

AMENDED COMPLAINT LODGED 

ON JULY 24, 2016

(ECF No. 21.)

Plaintiff Jose Ledesma (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 24, 2016, the 

Court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that this case proceed on 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint against defendants Adame, Tyree, and Lundy for 

violation of the Eighth Amendment based on adverse conditions of confinement, and that all 

remaining claims and defendants be dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 19.) On July 21, 

2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations and lodged a Third 

Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 20, 21.)

Plaintiff objects to the Court’s recommendation to dismiss his retaliation claim and 

seeks leave to file a Third Amended Complaint for the Court’s review. Plaintiff states that he 

Case 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG Document 22 Filed 09/15/16 Page 1 of 2
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

“recently acquired understanding about what requisite factual allegations must be made to 

make out the [retaliation] claim,” and he believes his proposed Third Amended Complaint 

states a First Amendment retaliation claim. (ECF No. 20 at 1.) 

“Rule 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 “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. Upon a review of the proposed Third 

Amended Complaint, the Court finds no bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing 

party, or futility in allowing Plaintiff to file the Third Amended Complaint. Therefore, in the 

interest of justice, the Court shall vacate the findings and recommendations and direct the Clerk 

to file the Third Amended Complaint lodged on July 21, 2016.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations entered on June 24, 2016 are VACATED;

2. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint for the Court’s 

review;

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Third Amended Complaint lodged on 

July 21, 2016; and

4. The Court shall screen the Third Amended Complaint in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG Document 22 Filed 09/15/16 Page 2 of 2