Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02164/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02164-17/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY STEVEN BOWMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2164 FCD KJM P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file an amended complaint pursuant

to the court's order of May 19, 2010. He has also asked to expand his amended complaint to add

a challenge to the Static 99 coding rules contained in California Penal Code sections 290.04

through 290.06. 

The defendants have answered the first amended complaint, so plaintiff needs

leave of court to file an amended complaint. Fed. R Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Although leave should be

given freely, five factors govern the inquiry: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing

party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. 

Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). The proposed amendment does not

appear to be sought in bad faith, nor would the defendants necessarily be prejudiced, as

discovery has not yet commenced. Nevertheless, this case has been pending for two and a half

1

Case 2:07-cv-02164-FCD-KJM Document 155 Filed 06/10/10 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

years, although it has been stayed for a portion of that time pending the resolution of a case by

the California Supreme Court. During that time, plaintiff has filed numerous motions and

challenges to aspects of his parole stemming from the requirement that he register as a sex

offender. When the court granted plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended complaint, it

contemplated that the issue would be limited to his challenge to the residency requirements of

Jessica’s law, an issue the court has already screened. Should plaintiff be permitted to amend the

complaint to add his undefined challenges to the Static 99 rules, the court would be required to

screen the complaint once again, which would further delay the proceedings. Moreover, plaintiff

has not suggested why he did not raise the proposed challenges initially. Finally, it is not clear

that this challenge is one properly brought against the current defendants; adding additional

defendants might further delay the resolution of this case. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's June 3, 2010 motion for an extension of time (Docket No. 154) is

granted; 

2. Plaintiff is granted fourteen days from the date of this order in which to file

and serve an amended complaint; but 

3. Plaintiff’s motion to add challenges to the Static 99 coding rules to the

amended complaint is denied. 

DATED: June 10, 2010. 

2/md

bowm2164.36

2

Case 2:07-cv-02164-FCD-KJM Document 155 Filed 06/10/10 Page 2 of 2