Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01077/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01077-7/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT McDANIEL,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

FRANK X. CHAVEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-01077-LJO-EPG-PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE 

TO FILE A FOURTH AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(ECF Nos. 34, 35.)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

I. BACKGROUND

Robert McDaniel (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on June 15, 2010. (ECF No. 1.) On April 3, 2014, the Court screened 

the Complaint and found that it stated cognizable claims. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff was ordered 

to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court he was willing to proceed only on the 

claims found cognizable by the Court. (Id.) On August 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed the First 

Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 17.) On September 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave 

to amend the complaint, which was granted on September 15, 2014. (ECF Nos. 18, 20.) The 

Second Amended Complaint was filed on September 15, 2014. (ECF No. 21.) On October 7, 

2014, the Court screened the Second Amended Complaint and found that it stated cognizable 

Case 1:10-cv-01077-LJO-EPG Document 36 Filed 05/10/16 Page 1 of 3
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

claims. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff was ordered to either file a Third Amended Complaint or 

notify the Court that he was willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the 

Court. (Id.) On December 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Third Amended Complaint, which 

awaits the Court‟s screening. (ECF No. 33.)

On January 21, 2016 and February 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed motions to add supplemental 

information to the Third Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 34, 35.)

II. LOCAL RULE 220 AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 15(a) -

AMENDING THE COMPLAINT

Local Rule 220 provides, in part:

Unless prior approval to the contrary is obtained from the Court, every 

pleading to which an amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right 

or has been allowed by court order shall be retyped and filed so that it is 

complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading. No 

pleading shall be deemed amended or supplemented until this Rule has been 

complied with. All changed pleadings shall contain copies of all exhibits 

referred to in the changed pleading.

Under Rule 220, Plaintiff may not amend the Third Amended Complaint by adding 

information after the Third Amended Complaint has been filed. To add information or make a 

correction to the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff must file a Fourth Amended Complaint 

which is complete in itself. 

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

party‟s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. 

Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the Court or by written consent of the adverse 

party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Here, because Plaintiff has already amended the complaint more 

than once, Plaintiff requires leave of Court to file a Fourth Amended Complaint.

“Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend „shall be freely given when justice so 

requires.‟” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 

2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). 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, 

Case 1:10-cv-01077-LJO-EPG Document 36 Filed 05/10/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712, 713 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 

(9th Cir. 1999)). 

The Court finds no bad faith or futility in Plaintiff‟s proposed amendment. The 

proposed supplemental information arises from the same events at issue in the Third Amended 

Complaint for this action. Because the Third Amended Complaint awaits the Court‟s requisite 

screening and has not been served, there will be no undue delay or prejudice to Defendants in 

allowing Plaintiff to file a Fourth Amended Complaint at this stage of the proceedings. 

Therefore, Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint making the 

changes he proposes, within thirty days.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the complaint; 

2. The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form; 

3. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a Fourth 

Amended Complaint, including all of the proposed allegations and claims he 

seeks to include;

4. The Fourth Amended Complaint shall be clearly and boldly titled “Fourth 

Amended Complaint,” shall refer to case number 1:10-cv-01077-LJO-EPG-PC, 

and shall be an original signed under penalty of perjury;

5. Plaintiff‟s failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation to 

dismiss this case for failure to obey a Court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01077-LJO-EPG Document 36 Filed 05/10/16 Page 3 of 3