Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02321/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02321-1/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

 “Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith of the

party seeking to interpose an amendment and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s

‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.”

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

- 1 - 05cv2321

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELIX ESPINO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05cv2321 WQH (POR)

vs. ORDER

CITY OF CHULA VISTA, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, alleges that his constitutional rights were

violated by members of the Chula Vista Police Department during his May 17, 2004 arrest.

On January 31, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint,

alleging for the first time that during his arrest, he sustained a back injury. Plaintiff alleged

that he only learned of the back injury when X-rays revealed the damage during a recent visit

to the doctor. On March 7, 2007, this Court found that this information was sufficient to show

“good cause” for Plaintiff’s delay in seeking amendment, as required by Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 16(b),1

 and therefore the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a first amended

complaint no later than April 10, 2007.

On April 6, 2007, Plaintiff filed a new Motion for Leave to File a First Amended

Case 3:05-cv-02321-WQH-POR Document 60 Filed 04/12/07 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 - 05cv2321

Complaint, along with a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. # 57-58.) The First Amended

Complaint contains allegations about the alleged back injury, as allowed by the Court’s March

7, 2007 Order. However, the First Amended Complaint also purports to add two new parties

to this suit, an issue which was not raised in Plaintiff’s January 31, 2007 Motion for Leave to

Amend and was not addressed in the Court’s March 7, 2007 Order.

Defendants may file an opposition to Plaintiff’s April 6, 2007 Motion for Leave to

Amend no later than April 27, 2007. Should Defendants file an opposition, Plaintiff may file

a reply to that response no later than May 11, 2007. The Court then will take the matter under

submission without oral argument. Defendants are not required to file an answer or otherwise

respond to the April 6, 2007 First Amended Complaint until after the Court rules on the April

6, 2007 Motion for Leave to Amend.

DATED: April 12, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02321-WQH-POR Document 60 Filed 04/12/07 Page 2 of 2