Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01609/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01609-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

HELEN WATHAN, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

MERCED COUNTY SHERIFF MARK )

N. PAZIN, et al., )

)

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:05cv1609 AWI DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Document 77)

Plaintiffs Helen and James Wathan (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action on December 9,

2005. Defendants filed their answer on March 16, 2006.

On April 5, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. 

Plaintiffs amended the motion on April 23, 2007. On May 25, 2007, the Court removed the

motion from its calendar subject to the motion being re-noticed. 

On June 8, 2007, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and

dismissed Defendants Deputy Sheriff William Blake and Mark N. Pazin from the action. 

Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on June 21, 2007. However, Plaintiffs did not

obtain leave of court or a stipulation to do so. The amended complaint is therefore in violation of

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), and should be stricken. 

Case 1:05-cv-01609-LJO-DLB Document 79 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 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

2

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs’ June 21, 2007, amended

complaint be STRICKEN. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District

of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after

service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 26, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01609-LJO-DLB Document 79 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 2