Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01024/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01024-4/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

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

Plaintiff Robert A. Hardgraves (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, filed on September 13, 2012, against Defendant Mui for 

deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendant 

Mui filed an answer to the third amended complaint on September 3, 2013. On December 30, 2013, a 

fourth amended complaint was lodged. (ECF No. 32.)

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend its pleading once 

as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, a party may 

amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 

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

Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices 

ROBERT A. HARDGRAVES,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES D. HARTLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-001024-BAM PC

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 32)

Case 1:11-cv-01024-AWI-BAM Document 33 Filed 01/03/14 Page 1 of 2
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

the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in 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)). 

Plaintiff has previously filed a third amended complaint and an answer has been filed. Plaintiff 

did not file a motion to amend, and the Court has not granted leave to amend. Therefore, it is 

HEREBY ORDERED that the fourth amended complaint, lodged December 30, 2013, is STRICKEN 

from the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01024-AWI-BAM Document 33 Filed 01/03/14 Page 2 of 2