Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02680/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02680-3/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

LAFAYETTE ANTWONE SMITH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2680 FCD GGH P

vs.

G. SALAS, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. By order, filed on November 17, 2009, the court ordered service of plaintiff’s original

complaint on defendants G. Salas, D. Caceres and R. Morrow. On April 9, 2010, these

defendants filed their answer. Thereafter, on July 21, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

The proposed amended complaint will be stricken for several reasons. First, while

plaintiff may file an amended pleading “once as a matter of course,” he must do so, once a

responsive pleading has been served, within 21 days thereafter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). 

Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint was not filed timely following service of the answer (or

“responsive pleading”). Second, plaintiff failed to file either a motion to amend or a stipulation

to amend the complaint signed by all parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Third, under Fed. R. Civ.

15(a)(2), while “[t]he court should freely give leave” to amend “when justice so requires,” the

Case 2:09-cv-02680-FCD-GGH Document 24 Filed 07/29/10 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

2

court finds the amended filing to be defective, failing to even set forth any allegations against

two of the named defendants, Salas and Morrow. See proposed amended complaint (docket #

22). Plaintiff has not made at all clear that it is his intent solely to proceed against defendant

Caceres, particularly since he continues to name all three defendants in his case caption. 

Moreover, as framed, the allegation of “disrespectful” behavior he makes against defendant

Caceres in the proposed first amended complaint does not even appear to rise to the level of a

violation of a constitutional right. It is possible that in attempting to amend his complaint,

plaintiff sought to attach some of the exhibits that are additional to the ones that he attached to

his original complaint. Plaintiff is not otherwise foreclosed, however, from making use of any

relevant exhibits in opposition to any future dispositive motion that defendants might file. 

Plaintiff’s defective proposed amended complaint will therefore be stricken.

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is to strike

plaintiff’s defective proposed first amended complaint, filed on July 21, 2010 (docket # 22), from

the docket of this case and this matter will proceed on the original complaint.

DATED: July 29, 2010

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

smit2680.ord

Case 2:09-cv-02680-FCD-GGH Document 24 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 2