Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-04922/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-04922-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK JESUS ODEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. VOONG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:18-cv-04922-YGR (PR)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO AMEND ANSWER TO THE 

COMPLAINT

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer to the 

complaint. Specifically, Defendants seek to add the affirmative defense of res judicata to their 

answer because they inadvertently omitted the defense in their answer and would be severely 

prejudiced if they did not have the opportunity to raise the defense.

For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Oden, a state prison inmate, filed the operative complaint on August 14, 2018. 

(ECF No. 1.) On January 14, 2019, the Court found that Oden’s allegations, when liberally 

construed, stated a cognizable claim that Defendants had violated Oden’s First Amendment rights 

and ordered service on Defendants. (ECF No. 7.) Defendants filed their answer on March 15, 

Case 4:18-cv-04922-YGR Document 17 Filed 07/12/19 Page 1 of 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

2

2019. (ECF No. 12.) A dispositive motion from Defendants is due on July 16, 2019. (ECF No. 

14.) Defendants now seek leave to amend their answer to the complaint. 

DISCUSSION

A party may amend its answer once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it, but 

after 21 days, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or 

the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The court should freely give leave when justice so 

requires, and public policy strongly encourages courts to permit amendments. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a); Waldrip v. Hall, 548 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Outdoor Sys., Inc. v. City of 

Mesa, 997 F.2d 604, 614 (9th Cir. 1993)). The policy of allowing amendments “is to be applied 

with extreme liberality.” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 

2001). 

Granting leave in this case would not prejudice Oden or cause undue delay, and Defendants 

do not seek leave in bad faith. See Waldrip, 548 F.3d at 732 (outlining considerations for 

determining whether a district court abused its discretion by granting leave to amend answer). 

Defendants have sought leave as soon as they discovered their inadvertent omission of the 

affirmative defense of res judicata. Furthermore, Oden is on notice of the facts related to whether 

the res judicata defense bars his complaint, given that he has included documents related to this 

defense. (ECF No. 1; Declaration of C. Hay-Mie Cho (Cho Decl.), ¶ 3.) In addition, Defendants’ 

proposed amendment would serve judicial economy because the res judicata defense would allow 

the case to be completely resolved on summary judgment. As Defendants have not sought leave 

to amend for any improper purpose, and Plaintiff would suffer no prejudice by the proposed 

amendment at this time, Defendants’ request is GRANTED.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 4:18-cv-04922-YGR Document 17 Filed 07/12/19 Page 2 of 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

3

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer is 

GRANTED.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the document attached to Defendants’ motion 

entitled, “Defendants’ Amended Answer and Demand for Jury Trial” (dkt. 16-3), and to send a 

copy of the aforementioned document to Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _________________________ _________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

July 12, 2019

Case 4:18-cv-04922-YGR Document 17 Filed 07/12/19 Page 3 of 3