Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00108/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00108-6/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

ALBERT LEE HOOD,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

MARGARET MIMS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-00108-LJO-GSA-PC

 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 22.)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AS 

INSTRUCTED BY THIS ORDER

I. BACKGROUND

Albert Lee Hood (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s 

original Complaint, filed on January 24, 2013, against defendants Chuna, Taylor, Wibbles, and 

Zavala, on Plaintiff=s Eighth Amendment medical claims. (Doc. 1.)

On October 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the Complaint. (Doc. 

22.) Defendants have not filed an opposition.

II. LEAVE TO AMEND – RULE 15(a)

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. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written 

Case 1:13-cv-00108-BAM Document 29 Filed 04/23/15 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

consent of the adverse party. Id. ARule 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 Aneed 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 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)). 

Plaintiff seeks to amend his request for relief in the Complaint to request monetary 

damages of $300,000. The Complaint now requests “any monetary amount the Court feels

adequate for the medical indifference and pain and suffering.” (Doc. 1 at 3 ¶V.) Plaintiff seeks 

to clarify the amount requested. In light of the fact that Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed, the 

court finds no prejudice to the opposing party in allowing the amendment. Any delay in the 

litigation due to the amendment appears reasonable, and the court finds no evidence of bad 

faith or futility. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to amend shall be granted, for the sole purpose of 

clarifying the amount of damages requested in the request for relief. Plaintiff shall not make 

any other changes to the Complaint. 

Plaintiff is advised that 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, Plaintiff’s 

First Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any previous 

complaint, and each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

Local Rule 220.

III. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

On November 19, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure 

to state a claim. (Doc. 24.) Because Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint shall supercede the 

original Complaint, Loux, 375 F.2d at 57, Defendants’ motion to dismiss shall be moot upon 

the filing of the First Amended Complaint. 

Case 1:13-cv-00108-BAM Document 29 Filed 04/23/15 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

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, filed on October 30, 2014, is GRANTED, 

for the sole purpose of clarifying the amount of damages requested in the 

request for relief; 

2. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file the 

First Amended Complaint as instructed by this order; 

3. Upon the filing of the First Amended Complaint, Defendants’ motion to dismiss 

filed on November 19, 2014 shall be moot; and

4. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that 

this case be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00108-BAM Document 29 Filed 04/23/15 Page 3 of 3