Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01024/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01024-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983dp Civil Right Denial of Due Process

---

1

16CV1024 BEN (JMA)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEON EDWARDS and LAKEASHA 

EDWARDS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MIRACOSTA COLLEGE et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16CV1024 BEN (JMA)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING IN PART MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND and

(2) DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS 

AS MOOT

[Docket Nos. 6, 14]

Currently before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First 

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended 

Complaint. (Docket Nos. 6, 14.) After Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss, 

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend, acknowledging that Defendants were correct as to one 

basis for dismissal and sought leave to amend to cure the deficiency. Although Plaintiff 

did amend once as a matter of right as permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

15(a)(1) prior to the filing of the Motion to Dismiss, this is Plaintiffs’ first request to the 

Court for leave to amend. 

The parties dispute whether it is more efficient for the Court to rule on the Motion 

to Dismiss or the Motion for Leave to Amend first. Plaintiffs have conceded the FAC 

Case 3:16-cv-01024-BEN-JMA Document 25 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 3
2

16CV1024 BEN (JMA)

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

requires amendment. The Court is not inclined to expend judicial resources evaluating a 

complaint all parties agree must be amended to survive.

Leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2) should be “freely give[n] . . . when justice so 

requires.” The Ninth Circuit “has noted on several occasions . . . that the Supreme Court 

has instructed the lower federal courts to heed carefully the command of Rule 15(a), . . . 

by freely granting leave to amend when justice so requires.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. 

Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (noting “the underlying purpose of Rule 

15—to facilitate decision on the merits rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.”). 

“This policy is ‘to be applied with extreme liberality.’” Eminence Capital, LLC v. 

Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. 

Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). Courts consider “undue delay, bad 

faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, 

undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of the proposed amendment” in 

deciding whether justice requires granting leave to amend under Rule 15. Moore v. 

Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Foman v. 

Davis, 370 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 

Given the early stage of the proceedings, only one prior amendment, and the 

course of the proceedings thus far, the only factor that could weigh against amendment is 

futility. Defendants briefly argue Plaintiffs’ official-capacity claims against individuals 

are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Plaintiffs counter that the officialcapacity claims are limited to prospective injunctive relief. If the official-capacity claims 

are limited to prospective injunctive relief, the Court cannot find the amendment is 

clearly futile on this particular point. However, the confusion is understandable because 

that limitation is not at all clear from the proposed amended pleading. It is also unclear 

which claims are asserted against which defendants and what relief is sought against 

them. 

///

Case 3:16-cv-01024-BEN-JMA Document 25 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 3
3

16CV1024 BEN (JMA)

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

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint, but not 

the proposed one attached to the Motion for Leave to Amend. Plaintiff may file a second 

amended complaint on or before October 15, 2016. It must make clear which claims are 

asserted against which defendants. Any limitations on the type of relief sought on 

particular claims or as to particular defendants must be clear. And, Plaintiffs must 

attempt to address the other pleading deficiencies identified in the Motion to Dismiss. 

The Court may not grant leave to amend a second time to cure deficiencies Defendants 

have already identified in the Motion to Dismiss.

The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.\

Dated: September 26, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-01024-BEN-JMA Document 25 Filed 09/26/16 Page 3 of 3