Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00438/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00438-3/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 07cv438

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY FRANKLIN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv438 BTM (LSP)

ORDER RE:

(1) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED

COMPLAINT [Doc. #41]

and

(2) DEFENDANT’S PENDING

MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. #37]

vs.

L.E. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

On March 8, 2007, Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 14, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to

dismiss the complaint on a number of grounds. The motion was calendared for hearing on

October 12, 2007. On August 29, 2007, Plaintiff filed an ex parte “Request to Amend Petition

to Correct Deficiencies.” In his filing, Plaintiff indicates that Defendant’s motion to dismiss

identified a number of deficiencies in his original complaint that were unintentional and he

requests leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint is

attached as Exhibit B to his “request.” The Court deems Plaintiff’s filing a motion for leave

to file an amended complaint.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) requires that leave to amend a complaint be

“freely given when justice so requires.” See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893

F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (Rule 15(a) amendment policy “is to be applied with extreme

liberality”). However, the Court notes that, beyond amendment by leave of the court, Rule

Case 3:07-cv-00438-WVG-RBB Document 42 Filed 09/04/07 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 07cv438

15(a) allows a party to amend its pleading “once as a matter of course at any time before a

responsive pleading is served.” In this case, Defendants have not yet filed an answer to

Plaintiff’s original complaint. Rather, they filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b). A motion to dismiss, however, is not a “responsive pleading” within

the meaning of Rule 15(a). See Breier v. Northern Cal. Bowling Proprietors’ Ass’n, 316 F.2d

787, 789 (9th Cir. 1963). Therefore, Plaintiff is permitted to amend his complaint as a matter

of course at this juncture. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s amended complaint, which is attached as

Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s present motion, shall be re-filed by the Clerk as a “First Amended

Complaint.”

In addition, in light of the fact that Plaintiff’s operative pleading has now been

replaced, the Court hereby requests that Defendants file a notice, within 15 days of entry of

this order, indicating whether they wish to proceed with their previously filed motion to

dismiss, or whether they wish to withdraw it and file a new response to Plaintiff’s amended

complaint.

If Defendants indicate that they intend to proceed with their previously filed motion,

the hearing on Defendants’ motion will remain calendared for October 12, 2007. Plaintiff

must be prepared to file any opposition to the motion by September 28, 2007, in accordance

with CivLR 7.1(e)(2).

If, however, Defendants withdraw their pending motion to dismiss, they will be

required to file a response to Plaintiff’s amended complaint within 30 days of entry of this

order. Any withdrawal by Defendants of their pending motion will be without prejudice to their

ability to file a renewed motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 4, 2007

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00438-WVG-RBB Document 42 Filed 09/04/07 Page 2 of 2