Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01007/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01007-4/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

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

MORALES FREDDY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORDONIA, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01007 DLB

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR PAPERWORK TO AMEND 

COMPLAINT

(Document 27)

Plaintiff Morales Freddy (“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 filed this action on June 

27, 2014, and the action is proceeding against Defendant Condoian1for violation of the Eighth 

Amendment.

Defendant Condoian filed an answer on June 22, 2015, and the action is now in discovery. 

The deadline to amend pleadings is October 21, 2015.

On August 20, 2015, the Court received a motion from Plaintiff requesting “appropriate 

paperwork to amend” his complaint, as well as instructions on how to amend.

Plaintiff is advised that at this stage of the proceedings, where Defendant has already made 

an appearance, he may only amend upon leave of Court. Plaintiff must therefore file a motion to 

amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The Court provides the following 

standard for Plaintiff’s review.

 

1

Plaintiff sued Defendant as “Cordonia,” though it appears that “Condoian” is the correct spelling.

Case 1:14-cv-01007-DLB Document 28 Filed 08/25/15 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

“Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so 

requires.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (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. The factor of “‘[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)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01007-DLB Document 28 Filed 08/25/15 Page 2 of 2