Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01565/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01565-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 - 07cv1565

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA QUINONES,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07 CV 1565 JM (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

AMEND COMPLAINT

Doc. Nos. 35

v.

U.S. PROTECT, a corporation, JOHN DOE

1, previously identified erroneously as

“Mulculsulban,” and DOES 2-20, inclusive

Defendants.

On August 8, 2007, Plaintiff initiated this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 following an alleged

assault she experienced by personnel at the San Ysidro border. Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s

motion for leave to amend their complaint, so as “to simplify and clarify the issues before the Court”

by dismissing four Bivens causes of action and clarifying the facts relevant to the remaining causes

of action. (Mot. at 1.) Defendants verbally represented their non-opposition to the court. The court

took the matter under submission pursuant to Civ.L.R. 7.1(d) on May 8, 2009.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) allow amendment of a pleading once as a

matter of right “at any time before a responsive pleading is served . . . . Otherwise a party may amend

the party’s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall

be freely given when justice so requires.” FRCP R. 15(a). 

Based on the circumstances advanced by Plaintiff, the court finds Defendants will suffer no

prejudice from the filing of a second amended complaint at this time and that Plaintiff has

Case 3:07-cv-01565-JM-BLM Document 37 Filed 05/15/09 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 - 07cv1565

demonstrated good cause for such amendment. Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion

for leave to file the proposed second amended complaint attached to their motion as Exhibit 1. (Doc.

No. 35.) The Clerk of Court is instructed to file the Second Amended Complaint. Further, the court

DENIES Plaintiff’s prior motion for leave to amend as moot. (Doc. No. 29.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 15, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01565-JM-BLM Document 37 Filed 05/15/09 Page 2 of 2