Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01384/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01384-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR MATUS, CASE NO. CV F 05-1384 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO

FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

vs. (Doc. 36.)

SGT. RICHARD MANFREDI, JR.,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff Arthur Matus (“plaintiff”) is incarcerated and proceeds pro se in this excessive force

action against defendants Fresno Police Officers Paul Van Dalen (“Officer Van Dalen”) and Richard

Manfredi, Jr. (“Officer Manfredi”). On August 14, 2006, plaintiff filed his request to file a first amended

complaint to seek apparently to add unspecified claims. Plaintiff provides neither a proposed first

amended complaint nor explanation of additional claims.

F.R.Civ.P. 15(a) provides that after service of a responsive pleading, “a party may amend the

party’s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be

freely given when justice so requires.” Granting or denial of leave to amend rests in the trial court’s

sound discretion and will be reversed only for abuse of discretion. Swanson v. United States Forest

Service, 87 F.3d 339, 343 (9 Cir. 1996). th

In addressing pleading amendments, the United States Supreme Court has explained:

If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject

Case 1:05-cv-01384-LJO -LJO Document 38 Filed 08/18/06 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

of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits. In

absence of any apparent or declared reason – such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory

motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments

previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the

amendment, futility of the amendment, etc. – the leave sought should, as the rules

require, be “freely given.”

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 (1962).

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has enumerated factors to consider on a motion to amend:

(1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) prejudice to the opponent; and/or (4) futility of the proposed

amendment. Loehr v. Ventura County Community College District, 743 F.2d 1310, 1319 (9 Cir. 1984). th

Plaintiff offers nothing to address factors for amendment. Plaintiff seeks a blanket amendment

without specifying the content of a contemplated amended complaint. This Court is not is a position to

grant plaintiff such broad relief. This Court DENIES plaintiff’s August 14, 2006 request to file a first

amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01384-LJO -LJO Document 38 Filed 08/18/06 Page 2 of 2