Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01286/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01286-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYRONE HUNT,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. TURNER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-1286 MCE CKD P 

ORDER

This pro se prisoner civil rights action proceeds on the original complaint filed May 27, 

2014. (ECF No. 1.) The complaint was ordered served on defendant Turner (ECF No. 8), who 

has filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a 

claim. (ECF No. 18.) 

Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, filed along with a proposed 

amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 23, 24.) Plaintiff explains that he seeks to “correct errors, . . . 

add back in the Warden [previously screened out] . . . , and add in more details that [were] left out 

to make the complaint clearly understandable.” (ECF No. 23 at 1.) 

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend shall be given 

freely when justice requires. In deciding whether justice requires granting leave to amend, factors 

Case 2:14-cv-01286-MCE-CKD Document 26 Filed 10/30/14 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

to be considered include the presence or absence of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, 

repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing 

party, and futility of proposed amendment. Having reviewed the proposed amended complaint, 

the court concludes that justice requires leave to amend in this instance.

However, the court further determines that plaintiff fails to cure the defects of the original 

complaint as to Warden Virga. See Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 942 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(plaintiffs failed to state claim against supervisory defendants where complaint did not allege “a 

specific policy implemented by Defendants or a specific event or events instigated by the 

Defendants that led to [the] purportedly unconstitutional [conduct].”) (emphasis in original).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 18) is denied as moot; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 22) is denied as premature; 

3. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 23) is granted; and 

4. This action shall proceed against defendant Turner on the First Amended Complaint 

(ECF No. 24.) Within thirty days of the date of this order, defendant shall file a responsive 

pleading or motion. 

Dated: October 30, 2014

2 / hunt1286.amend

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-01286-MCE-CKD Document 26 Filed 10/30/14 Page 2 of 2