Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00843/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00843-21/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAMEN D. RABB,

Plaintiff,

v.

ESTEVEN FIGUEROA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB (PC)

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT LODGED ON 

JULY 24, 2024

(ECF No. 70)

Plaintiff is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 24, 2024, Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint which was lodged by the 

Court. (ECF No. 70.) 

I.

DISCUSSION

On October 30, 2023, the Court issued the operative Amended Scheduling Order. (ECF 

No. 27.) The Court set the deadline for amending the pleadings as January 30, 2024, and the 

deadline for filing motions for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies 

as February 29, 2024. (Id. at 3.)

On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff lodged a first amended complaint (FAC) with the Court. 

(ECF No. 28.) On February 8, 2024, the Court returned the proposed FAC to Plaintiff and 

instructed him that he needed to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint or obtain 

Defendants’ consent to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 29.)

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 73 Filed 08/05/24 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

27

28

2

On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend the complaint. 

(ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff’s motion was not accompanied by a proposed amended complaint, but on 

March 14, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a proposed amended complaint which is the same proposed 

complaint constructively filed on January 30, 2024. (ECF No. 36.) Defendants filed an 

opposition on March 4, 2024. (ECF No. 35.)

On March 25, 2024, Findings and Recommendations were issued to deny Plaintiff’s 

motion to amend, which were adopted in full on May 3, 2024, and the proposed amended 

complaint was stricken from the record. (ECF Nos. 39, 56.)

Plaintiff has yet again has submitted a proposed amended complaint, without an 

accompanying motion for leave to amend, which was lodged on July 24, 2024. As stated in the 

Court’s February 8, 2024 order:

A plaintiff may file one amended complaint without leave (permission) of Court before 

any defendant has answered your original complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). After any 

defendant has filed an answer, you must file a motion for leave to amend and lodge 

(submit) a proposed amended complaint. L.R. 137(c). Because Defendants have already 

answered the complaint, Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern 

whether plaintiff may amend. Under Rule 15(a)(2), “a party may amend its pleading only 

with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave” and the “court should 

freely give leave when justice so requires.” However, a “district court does not err in 

denying leave to amend where the amendment would be futile.” Saul v. United States, 928 

F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991). Further, leave to amend may be denied where “undue 

prejudice to the opposing party” would result. Moore v. Kayport Package Express, 885 

F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989).

Here, Plaintiff did not request nor obtain leave of the Court to file a first amended 

complaint, and the filing of the first amended complaint was improper. In addition, the 

Court’s discovery and scheduling provides for a deadline to amend the pleadings, but does 

not afford the automatic right to amend the pleadings. Thus, although leave to amend 

should be freely given when justice so requires, it appears Plaintiff made no attempt to 

obtain Defendants’ consent or the Court’s permission prior to lodging his first amended 

complaint. 

(ECF No. 29 at 1-2.) 

///

///

///

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 73 Filed 08/05/24 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

27

28

3

Because Plaintiff did not seek leave of Court to file an amended complaint or obtain 

consent from Defendants, Plaintiff’s amended complaint, lodged on July 24, 2024 (ECF No. 70) 

is STRICKEN from the record. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 73 Filed 08/05/24 Page 3 of 3