Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00080/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00080-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIM CHATMAN COOPER, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0080 LKK GGH P

vs.

LASSEN COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

 / ORDER

Plaintiff, a state parolee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendant Lassen County Sheriff’s

Department and defendant Deputy Shaun Gualco’s motion to strike the amended complaint, filed

on November 19, 2007, to which plaintiff filed no opposition.

By Order filed on April 12, 2007, certain claims and defendants were dismissed

from the original complaint and plaintiff was granted leave to amend. Plaintiff did not file an

amended complaint but, in a response filed on May 17, 2007, indicated that he wished to proceed

as to the claims found colorable in the original complaint. By Order filed on June 21, 2007, the

court found plaintiff’s original complaint, filed on January 12, 2007, appropriate for service upon

defendants Lassen County Sheriff’s Dept. and Lassen County Sheriff’s Deputy Gualco; on the

Case 2:07-cv-00080-LKK -GGH Document 29 Filed 04/22/08 Page 1 of 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

2

same day, the court filed Findings and Recommendations, recommending dismissal of

defendants Martin, Zielen and Warren, which Findings and Recommendations were adopted by

Order, filed on September 13, 2007, and these defendants were dismissed. On August 2, 2007,

the court ordered service of the original complaint on the remaining defendants. On October 9,

2007, defendants Lassen County Sheriff’s Dept. and Deputy Gualco filed an answer.

One month later, on November 9, 2007, plaintiff purported to file an amended

complaint. In the motion to strike filed by defendants, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), they

note that plaintiff failed to file a motion seeking the court’s leave to amend. Motion, p. 2. Under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), a party may amend his/her complaint once as a matter of course

before having been served with a responsive pleading, but as noted in this case, an answer had

been filed. Thus, plaintiff was permitted to proceed only pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2),

that is, “only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” 

However, the court is also constrained by the applicable rule, as well, to “freely

give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In this case, despite defendants’

objections to the amended complaint on the grounds that plaintiff failed to comport with

procedural requirements, and their (somewhat conclusory) contention that the claims of the

amended complaint are frivolous, and deficient as well for his failure to plead compliance with

the California Tort Claims Act (see motion to strike, supporting memorandum and supporting

declaration), and despite plaintiff’s inexplicable failure to oppose the motion to strike, the court’s

review of the amended complaint reveals that it is a significant improvement upon the original

complaint for several reasons. 

In the first place, the amended complaint references only the defendants against

whom this action is now proceeding. Second, the claims, the gravamen of which are that

defendants violated plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights by subjecting him to excessive force,

are more clearly and coherently set forth. Third, plaintiff plainly sets forth the relief he seeks. 

For these reasons, the court will deny defendants’ motion to strike, despite plaintiff’s

Case 2:07-cv-00080-LKK -GGH Document 29 Filed 04/22/08 Page 2 of 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

3

procedurally defective method of filing the complaint, and will deem the amended complaint

filed as of the date of this order. Defendants will be granted leave to file an amended answer,

should they seek to do so, within thirty days, or otherwise will be deemed to be relying on their

previously filed answer.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to strike the amended complaint, filed on November 19,

2007 (# 20), is denied;

2. The amended complaint, defectively filed on November 9, 2007 (#19), shall be

deemed to have been filed on the date this order is filed; and

3. Defendants may file an amended answer within thirty days; or if they elect not

to do so, the answer previously filed on October 9, 2007, will be deemed to be their answer to the

amended complaint.

DATED: 04/22/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

coop0080.mts

Case 2:07-cv-00080-LKK -GGH Document 29 Filed 04/22/08 Page 3 of 3