Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00816/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00816-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

OBIE CRISP,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-00816-GSA-PC

 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

AMEND

(Doc. 25.)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE 

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 

LODGED ON NOVEMBER 21, 2014

(Doc. 26.)

I. BACKGROUND

Obie Crisp (“Plaintiff") is a 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 May 30, 2013. (Doc. 1.) 

On June 24, 2013, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 5.) 

Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 

California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as 

reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

Case 1:13-cv-00816-EPG Document 31 Filed 05/18/15 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

On July 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 13.) The court 

screened the First Amended Complaint and issued an order on July 3, 2014, dismissing the 

First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 23.) On July 

18, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 24.)

On November 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and 

lodged a proposed Third Amended Complaint. (Doc. 25.)

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 

consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Id. Here, 

because Plaintiff has already amended the complaint more than once, Plaintiff requires leave of 

court to file a Third Amended Complaint.

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

(9th Cir. 1999)). 

Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiff requests leave to file a Third Amended Complaint to clarify his allegations and 

claims. Plaintiff asserts that he was recently diagnosed with a form of OCD (Obsessive 

Compulsive Disorder), which explains why his thoughts and writing were always jumbled. 

Now, Plaintiff seeks to file a complaint that is more clear and precise. 

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-00816-EPG Document 31 Filed 05/18/15 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

Discussion

The court finds no bad faith or futility in Plaintiff’s proposed amendment. The 

proposed Third Amended Complaint arises from the same events documented in the Second 

Amended Complaint. Because the Second 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 proceed with the Third Amended Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion 

to amend shall be granted, and the Third Amended Complaint shall be filed.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend, filed on November 21, 2014, is GRANTED; and

2. The Clerk is directed to file the proposed Third Amended Complaint which was 

lodged on November 21, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00816-EPG Document 31 Filed 05/18/15 Page 3 of 3