Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00749/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00749-43/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

ANTHONY CRAIG HUCKABEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEDICAL STAFF at CSATF, et al.,

Defendants.

1:09-cv-00749-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO AMEND PURSUANT TO FEDERAL 

RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 15(a)(2)

(ECF No. 187)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

FILE LODGED FIFTH AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Anthony Craig Huckabee (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner, currently proceeding 

pro se and in forma pauperis, in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff 

initiated this action on April 28, 2009. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference to 

serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

II. Procedural Background

Given the lengthy procedural history of this case, the Court will recount only that which is 

relevant to the instant motion. On May 26, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s third amended 

Case 1:09-cv-00749-DAD-BAM Document 192 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 4
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

complaint. The Court directed Plaintiff to either file a fourth amended complaint or notify the 

Court that he did not wish to file an amended complaint and he was willing to proceed only on the 

claims found cognizable against Defendants McGuinness, Jimenez, and Jeffreys for deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 174.)

On July 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed his fourth amended complaint. (ECF No. 183.) On July 

23, 2015, the Defendants filed a request for the Court to screen Plaintiff’s fourth amended 

complaint. (ECF No. 185.) On May 2, 2016, before the Court could screen Plaintiff’s fourth 

amended complaint, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), and lodged a fifth amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 187, 188.) As of 

the date of this order, Defendants have not opposed the motion.

Under Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules Civil Procedure, a party may amend its pleading 

once as a matter of course twenty-one days after serving, or if a response was filed, within 

twenty-one days after service of the response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Otherwise, a party may 

amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the opposing party, and leave shall be 

freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and 

leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. 

Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006). However, courts “need not grant leave to 

amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) 

produces an undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id. The factor of “[u]ndue delay by 

itself... is insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.” Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health 

Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712-13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 

(9th Cir. 1999)).

///

///

Case 1:09-cv-00749-DAD-BAM Document 192 Filed 11/22/16 Page 2 of 4
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

III. Discussion

Plaintiff’s motion seeks to make the following amendments to his complaint: (1) expressly

identify the Doe defendant named in the fourth amended complaint, namely Frank Williams; (2) 

correct Plaintiff’s inadvertent omission of his name and the case number from the front page of 

the fourth amended complaint; and (3) correct the omission regarding the link between Defendant 

Nguyen’s actions and the harm Plaintiff claims to have suffered. (ECF No. 187.)

The Court has reviewed the proposed amended complaint and finds that leave to amend 

should be granted. In considering the relevant factors, the Court finds no indication that the 

amendment will result in prejudice to Defendants currently appearing in this action. Defendants, 

by failing to oppose the motion, have waived any argument regarding prejudice. Moreover, the 

proposed amendment does not change the nature of Plaintiff’s underlying action against 

Defendants.

The Court also finds no indication that the amendment is sought in bad faith or will 

unduly delay these proceedings. Any potential delay resulting from amendment is not attributable 

to dilatory conduct by Plaintiff in these proceedings. The Court had yet to screen Plaintiff’s fourth 

amended complaint when he filed the instant motion, and the Defendants have voiced no 

objections to his motion or his proposed amended complaint.

Finally, Plaintiff’s proposed amendments do not appear wholly futile. Significantly, the 

Court intends to screen the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court will 

dismiss any portion of Plaintiff’s amended complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

///

///

Case 1:09-cv-00749-DAD-BAM Document 192 Filed 11/22/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

IV. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, filed on May 2, 2016, is 

GRANTED;

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file the Fifth Amended Complaint, lodged on 

May 2, 2016 (ECF No. 188);

3. After filing, the Court will screen the Fifth Amended Complaint in due course; and

4. Defendants’ request for screening of Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint is DENIED 

as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00749-DAD-BAM Document 192 Filed 11/22/16 Page 4 of 4