Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05343/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05343-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STEVE DALE PERCELLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. PEARSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-05343-TEH 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Steven Dale Percelle’s motion for leave 

to file a Second Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 196). The Court previously denied 

Plaintiff’s administrative motion to reconsider its order dismissing his due process claim 

with prejudice. July 1, 2015 Order at 3 (Docket No. 209). Therefore, the only significant 

changes remaining in the proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) are additional 

factual allegations in support of Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim and a new 

claim for false imprisonment. Proposed SAC at 33-39 (Docket No. 196-1). Defendants 

filed a statement of non-opposition to the proposed SAC as modified by the Court’s order 

dismissing the proposed due process claim. (Docket No. 210). 

In light of Defendants’ statement of non-opposition, the Court finds this matter 

suitable for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED IN PART as unopposed. As the Court 

has already explained, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a sufficient basis for it to reconsider 

its order dismissing Plaintiff’s due process claim with prejudice; that portion of Plaintiff’s 

motion for leave to amend is accordingly DENIED. 

///

///

///

///

Case 3:12-cv-05343-TEH Document 211 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff shall file a SAC no later than one week after entry of this order. The SAC 

shall not include a due process claim, and shall otherwise only include changes that were 

included in Plaintiff’s proposed SAC filed on June 22, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 07/09/15 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-05343-TEH Document 211 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 2