Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01832/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01832-6/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	

ALAN FREIBAUM, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

K. HOLLAND, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

1:14-cv-01832-BAM (PC) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

(ECF No. 23) 

I. Introduction 

Plaintiff Alan Freibaum (“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 has consented to 

magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 7.) Service of the summons and complaint by the United 

States Marshal is pending against the only named Defendant in this action, S. Wootton. (ECF 

No. 18.) 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended complaint 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff states that he has 

discovered new evidence suggesting another named defendant for this action. Plaintiff explains 

that he obtained the name “S. Wootton, R.N.” from a stamp on a medical form in which he 

requested to bypass nursing and be referred directly to the doctor’s line. (Id. at 4.) However, the 

triage flow sheet from the examination at issue shows the name of “L. Justice, R.N.” as the 

participant. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff further contends that other signatures on a medical encounter form 

Case 1:14-cv-01832-AWI-BAM Document 25 Filed 09/27/16 Page 1 of 3
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

from incident in question could be the signature of either S. Wootton, R.N. or L. Justice, R.N. 

(Id. at 9, 10.) As a result, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint to add “L. Justice, R.N.,” 

as an alternative or additional defendant. 

II. Legal Standards 

Amendment of pleadings is governed by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

provided that leave to amend is requested prior to the expiration of the deadline for amending 

pleadings as set forth in the scheduling order, if one has been entered. AmerisourceBergen Corp. 

v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 952 (9th Cir. 2006). Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s 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.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. 

Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and quotation omitted). 

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 litigation; or (4) is 

futile.” Id. 

III. Discussion 

 In this case, the Court finds no bad faith by Plaintiff in his motion to amend; he seeks to 

add alternative allegations due to his uncertainty about the proper defendant(s) in this case. There 

is no prejudice to the opposing party as this litigation is in the earliest stages and no defendant 

has yet been served. There will also be no undue delay here. The Court will issue a separate 

order recalling service of the first amended complaint by the United States Marshal, and will 

allow Plaintiff a reasonable period to file a second amended complaint. 

 Accordingly, Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file a second amended complaint, within 

thirty (30) days, for the sole purpose of adding additional allegations against “L. Justice, R.N.” 

Plaintiff should note that although he has been granted leave to amend, he may not change the 

nature of this suit by adding any other new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George 

v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff is further advised that an amended 

Case 1:14-cv-01832-AWI-BAM Document 25 Filed 09/27/16 Page 2 of 3
3 

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

complaint supersedes the original complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (en banc). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be “complete in itself 

without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. 

IV. Conclusion and Order 

For the reasons explained above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, filed on 

September 23, 2016(ECF No. 23), is GRANTED; 

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form; 

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 

second amended complaint as discussed in this order. Plaintiff shall clearly identify the amended 

complaint as “Second Amended Complaint” and refer to the case number. Plaintiff may not add 

any new allegations or claims to this action other than those already found to be cognizable by 

the Court; and, 

4. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the action will be dismissed for 

failure to prosecute and to obey a court order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 27, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01832-AWI-BAM Document 25 Filed 09/27/16 Page 3 of 3