Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06173/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06173-4/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEROME MARKAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN YEE, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 6173 OWW LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND

(Doc. 59.) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

RETURN LODGED DOCUMENT TO

PLAINTIFF (Doc. 60.) 

 Jerome Markay (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 8, 2005, this Court issued a Scheduling Order setting fort a discovery

deadline of August 5, 2005. 

On August 17, 2005, Plaintiff lodged an Amended Complaint. On September 2, 2005,

the Court directed the Clerk of Court to return the lodged Amended Complaint to Plaintiff

because Plaintiff had not requested permission to file the Amended Complaint nor was

permission given. 

On September 12, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend, appropriately served

Defendants, and lodged a pleading titled “Notice of Motion and Motion to Amend.” This

appears to be a list of all the facts Plaintiff seeks to include in the action. Plaintiff states that he

Case 1:02-cv-06173-OWW -LJO Document 62 Filed 09/28/05 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

27

28

2

was unaware that he needed to seek permission to file an Amended Complaint because of Rule

15. Plaintiff then requests that the Court construe the filing as timely due to his

misunderstanding of the rule. 

On September 15, 2005, Defendants filed an Opposition to the Motion to Amend as being

untimely made. 

As noted by Defendants, the Court’s Scheduling Order provided that the deadline to

submit Amended Pleadings was September 5, 2005. Plaintiff did not move to amend, however,

until September 12, 2005. Although Plaintiff alleges that he misunderstood Rule 15 regarding

amended pleadings, the Court finds this justification insufficient to demonstrate good cause. 

Rule 15 is clear in that a party may amend its pleadings without leave of court once as a matter of

course at any time before a responsive pleading is served . “Otherwise, a pay may amend only by

leave of court.” Rule 15(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. In this case, the “Answer” to the Complaint was filed

by Defendants on January 14, 2005. Thus, Plaintiff must have sought permission to file an

Amended Complaint and must have done so prior to the expiration of the Amended Pleadings

deadline of September 5, 2005. He did not. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion to Amend is DENIED; and

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to return the lodged document titled “Notice of

Motion and Motion to Amend” to Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06173-OWW -LJO Document 62 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 2