Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461-9/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

ADAM JAY STONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01461-ADA-SAB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 41)

Plaintiff Adam Jay Stone is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the complaint, filed 

September 8, 2022.

Plaintiff seeks leave to file amend the complaint to specify the amount of damages 

sought. (ECF No. 41.) 

Rule 15(a)(2) provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so 

requires,” and the Ninth Circuit has directed courts to apply this policy with “extreme 

liberality.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). When 

determining whether to grant leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2), a court should consider the 

following factors: (1) undue delay, (2) bad faith, (3) futility of amendment, and (4) prejudice to 

the opposing party. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Granting or denying leave to 

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 45 Filed 10/03/22 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

amend rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and will be reversed only for abuse of 

discretion. Swanson v. U.S. Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) provides: “Upon motion of a party the court may ... 

permit the party to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions or occurrences or 

events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(d). This rule is one of judicial economy and convenience, allowing the Court to award 

complete relief to a plaintiff and avoid the cost, delay, and waste of time that would occur if a 

separate lawsuit was filed. Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473 (9th Cir.1988) (citing New

Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Waller, 323 F.2d 20, 28-29 (4th Cir.1963)).

Plaintiff seeks to supplement the complaint to add the specific amount of compensatory 

and punitive damages requested. (ECF No. 41.) This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint, filed on January 10, 2022. (ECF No. 22.) Therein, Plaintiff seeks, inter 

alia, compensatory and punitive damages in an unspecified amount. (Id. at 10.) In any litigation, 

the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the amount of his or her damages at trial. Sloman v.

Tadlock, 21 F.3d 1462, 1472 (9th Cir.1994) (“damages in § 1983 actions are not to be assessed 

on the basis of the abstract ‘value’ or ‘importance’ of the infringed constitutional 

right”). Punitive damages are likewise assessed by the jury at trial. Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30,

54 (1983) (“Punitive damages are awarded in the jury's discretion”). 

When determining whether to permit amendment a court must consider such factors 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, [and] futility of the amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,

182 (1962). 

Here, there is no indication that Plaintiff who is appearing pro se, unduly delayed in 

requesting leave to amend or that his filing was made in bad faith. The proposed amendment 

does not add any new Defendants and the excessive force claims remains the same. Thus, the 

amendment is not futile, as the Court has already determined for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 45 Filed 10/03/22 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

Plaintiff states a cognizable claim for excessive force. In addition, Defendants have not opposed 

the motion or filed a response to the first amended complaint, and there is no basis for finding 

that the amendments will prejudice them. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to amend is therefore 

granted and his first amended complaint is supplemented to reflect the relief sought in his 

September 8, 2022, motion. (ECF No. 41.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2022 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 45 Filed 10/03/22 Page 3 of 3