Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02953/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02953-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAVON LAMAR TORBERT, CDCR #P96193,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv2953 DMS (WMc)

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION

vs. [ECF No. 20.]

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; MADSEN;

STORTON, BLACK; MIDECKE;

OGSBERT; JOHN DOES, 

Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION

On March 29, 2012, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a request to extend the

time allotted in the Court’s Scheduling Order for amendment of pleadings. [ECF No. 20.] In his letter

request to the Court, Plaintiff seeks a brief one-week extension up to and including April 6, 2012, to

file an amended pleading. Id.

II. STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a party may amend its complaint once “as

a matter of course” before a responsive pleading is served, or at any time within twenty days of service

if it requires no response. “Otherwise a party may amend the party’s pleading only by leave of 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). 

This Court notes that on several occasions, “the Supreme Court has instructed the lower federal

courts to heed carefully the command of Rule 15(a), F[ed]. R. Civ. P., by freely granting leave to

amend when justice so requires.” DCD Programs, LTD. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1995)

- 1 - 11cv2953 DMS (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-02953-DMS-WMC Document 21 Filed 04/02/12 Page 1 of 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

(quoting Gabrielson v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 785 F.2d 762, 765 (9th Cir. 1986)) (quoting Howey

v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973)) (citations omitted). “Rule 15's policy of

favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with ‘extreme liberality.’” United States v. Webb,

655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Rosenberg Brothers & Co. v. Arnold, 283 F.2d 406 (9th Cir.

1960) (per curiam)). Liberality in granting leave to amend pleadings is not dependent on whether

amendment will add causes of action or parties; however, “it is subject to qualification that

amendment not cause opposing party undue prejudice, is not sought in bad faith, and does not

constitute an exercise in futility.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir.

1981). 

In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), the United States Supreme Court held that leave to

amend pleadings should be freely given in the absence of any apparent or declared reasons. The Court

enunciated multiple factors a district court should consider when deciding whether to grant leave to

amend, including: 

[U]ndue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,

repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed,

undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the

amendment, futility of amendment. 

Id. at 182. 

The Ninth Circuit rule allows amendments to pleadings absent a showing of the factors set

forth in Foman. See Yakima Indian Nation v. State of Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, 176 F.3d 1241 (9th

Cir. 1999). However, not all the Foman factors are of equal weight. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at

1052. The consideration of prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest weight. Id. at 1051;

See also DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 186-87 (noting that the party opposing the amendment “bears

the burden of showing prejudice”). Furthermore, absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the

remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to

amend pleadings. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. 

///

///

- 2 - 11cv2953 DMS (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-02953-DMS-WMC Document 21 Filed 04/02/12 Page 2 of 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

///

III. DISCUSSION AND ORDER THEREON

Plaintiff’s request for an extension is GRANTED. Plaintiff writes that he requires a short

extension because the High Desert State Prison is on lockdown and this condition limits the amount

of time in which he is given to work on his proposed amendment. [ECF No. 20.] After careful

consideration of the procedural history of this case as well as the Foman factors, the Court finds that

because an Answer in this matter has been filed as recently as March 26, 2012 and a Scheduling Order

issued only two weeks ago, Plaintiff has not unduly delayed in submitting the request at issue. 

Similarly, because this case is still in the pleading stages, the Court further finds a one-week extension

of the amendment deadline will not significantly prejudice Defendants. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional

pleadings shall be filed on or before April 6, 2012. The remainder of the Court’s March 13, 2012

Scheduling Order shall continue with full force and effect. [ECF No. 17.]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 2, 2012

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S.District Court

- 3 - 11cv2953 DMS (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-02953-DMS-WMC Document 21 Filed 04/02/12 Page 3 of 3