Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01714/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01714-12/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANCE WILLIAMS, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01714-DAD-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 39)

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint against Defendant Salvatore for medical indifference in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 10.) 

Pursuant to the scheduling order filed on April 11, 2016, the deadline to amend the 

pleadings is October 11, 2016. (ECF No. 36.) On April 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a timely 

motion seeking leave to amend his complaint “due to recent discovery and 

miscalculations of time.” (ECF No. 39.) On May 12, 2016, Defendant filed an opposition. 

(ECF No. 40.) On May 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed his reply. (ECF No. 41.) The matter is 

submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

Case 1:14-cv-01714-DAD-MJS Document 42 Filed 07/01/16 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

II. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff’s claims arise out of events that occurred while he was incarcerated at 

Wasco State Prison (“WSP”) in Wasco, California. On or about April 5, 2014, Plaintiff fell 

while he was climbing down from the top bunk in his cell. He claims he lost 

consciousness and suffered injuries to his head and neck. On or about April 6, 2014, 

Plaintiff told Defendant that he had fallen and suffered injuries and needed medical 

attention, explaining that another correctional officer had already refused to take Plaintiff 

to the medical clinic. Defendant also refused to take Plaintiff to the medical clinic and 

refused to give Plaintiff a sick call slip. Plaintiff did not see a doctor until April 10, 2014.

Plaintiff now seeks to file a second amended complaint. He states generally that 

he needs to amend due to “recent discovery” and “miscalculations of time frames” within 

his complaint. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a 

responsive pleading is served and up to twenty-one days after service of a responsive 

pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the 

court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when 

justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiff has already filed an amended 

complaint. (ECF No. 10). Furthermore, a responsive pleading has already been served. 

Therefore, Plaintiff may not file a second amended complaint without leave of court.

Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without 

reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the 

original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended 

complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. 

Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the 

involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

Furthermore, Local Rule 137(c) requires a party to include a copy of the proposed 

amended complaint with the moving papers when seeking leave to amend.

Case 1:14-cv-01714-DAD-MJS Document 42 Filed 07/01/16 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

In determining whether to grant leave to amend, courts generally consider four 

factors: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, and (4) futility 

of amendment. In re Korean Airlines Co., Ltd., 642 F.3d 685, 701 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing 

Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363, 1370 (9th Cir. 1994)) (quotation marks omitted); also

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Waldrip v. Hall, 548 F.3d, 729, 732 (9th Cir. 

2008); AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 

2006); Eminence Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052. 

With regards to undue delay, A>[w]here the party seeking amendment knows or 

should know of the facts upon which the proposed amendment is based but fails to 

include them in the original complaint, the motion to amend may be denied.=@ E.E.O.C. v. 

Boeing, Co., 843 F.2d 1213, 1222 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Jordan v. County of Los 

Angeles, 669 F.2d 1311, 1324 (9th Cir. 1982), vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S. 810 

(1982)). However, the factor of A>[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)). 

In evaluating whether a proposed amendment is futile, the Court must determine 

whether the amendment would withstand a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6), and in making this evaluation, the Court is confined to review of the 

proposed amended pleading. Nordyke v. King, 644 F.3d 776, 788 n.12 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(citing Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988) (reh’g en banc 

Nordyke v. King, 681 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2012))). 

Prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest weight, and absent prejudice, 

or a strong showing of any of the remaining factors, there exists a presumption in favor of 

granting leave to amend. Eminence Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052 (quotation marks 

omitted), as “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when 

justice so requires.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). 

Case 1:14-cv-01714-DAD-MJS Document 42 Filed 07/01/16 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. DISCUSSION

The Court need not reach the merits of each party’s arguments at this juncture, as 

Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective. It does not include a copy of his proposed 

amended complaint as required by Local Rule 137(c), and indeed includes no details as 

to what new allegations Plaintiff seeks to add to his complaint or why. Plaintiff also has 

not met the requirements of Local Rule 220 in that he has not put forth a claim which is

complete in itself. Local Rule 220; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (a pleading must contain “a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”).

Therefore, without evaluating the merits of the parties’ arguments, the Court will 

deny, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s motion. Should Plaintiff choose to file another motion

prior to the October 11, 2016 deadline to amend, he must attach his proposed amended 

complaint to his moving papers. Any such amended complaint must be complete unto 

itself without reference to the preceding complaint.

V. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion for leave to amend 

(ECF No. 39) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01714-DAD-MJS Document 42 Filed 07/01/16 Page 4 of 4