Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01483/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01483-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN ELLIS, No. CIV S-04-1483-LKK-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

ALBONICO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for

leave to amend his complaint (Doc. 19) and defendants’ opposition thereto (Doc. 20).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her

pleading “. . . once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15(a). Once a responsive pleading is filed, a party’s pleadings may only be amended

upon leave of court or stipulation of all the parties. See id. Where leave of court to amend is

sought, the court considers the following factors: (1) whether there is a reasonable relationship

between the original and amended pleadings; (2) whether the grant of leave to amend is in the

interest of judicial economy and will promote the speedy resolution of the entire controversy; (3)

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 21 Filed 10/13/05 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

2

whether there was a delay in seeking leave to amend; (4) whether the grant of leave to amend

would delay a trial on the merits of the original claim; and (5) whether the opposing party will be

prejudiced by amendment. See Jackson v. Bank of Hawai’i, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Leave to amend should be denied where the proposed amendment is frivolous. See DCD

Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).

In his motion, plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint in order to add

allegations against a new defendant. Specifically, plaintiff seeks to add a claim against a prison

official who allegedly falsified information in plaintiff’s disciplinary proceeding. As defendants

correctly note in their opposition, such a claim is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because

a judgment in plaintiff’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of the underlying

disciplinary process. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-84 (1994); Edwards v. Balisok,

520 U.S. 641, 646 (1997). For this reason, plaintiff’s proposed amendment would be frivolous.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is denied; and

2. This action shall proceed on the original complaint, filed on July 28, 2004.

DATED: October 12, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 21 Filed 10/13/05 Page 2 of 2