Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01252/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01252-3/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL MOOTRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. G. FLORES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01252-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER DENYINGPLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR

LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 28)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

(ECF No. 33)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Michael Mootry (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed

a motion to amend the relief section of his complaint. (ECF No. 28.) Defendants’ filed a motion

to dismiss on June 10, 2011. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file

an opposition to Defendants’ motion on June 23, 2011. (ECF No. 33.) Good cause having been

shown, the Court shall grant Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time.

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s

pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise,

a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave

shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and

leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires.’” Amerisource Bergen Corp. v.

Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However,

1

Case 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM Document 34 Filed 06/27/11 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

courts “need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2)

is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id. The factor

of “‘[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.’” Owens v.

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712,13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quotingBowles v. Reade,

198 F.3d 752, 757-58 (9th Cir. 1999)).

Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend, but has not provided a copy of the amended

complaint or specified the relief he is seeking. Therefore, the Court is unable to determine if the

amendment should be allowed. Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied, without prejudice. Plaintiff may

re-submit his motion with the amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that if he submits a proposed

second amended complaint, it must be complete within itself in that it sets forth the claims found

cognizable against Defendants T. Billings, Cabrera, E.G. Flores, R. Grissom, Hedgpeth, G.D. Lewis,

D. Tarnoff, and C. Wegman.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, filed April 12, 2011, is

DENIED without prejudice; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, filed June 23, 2011, is GRANTED; and

3. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall submit his

opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2011 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

cm411 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM Document 34 Filed 06/27/11 Page 2 of 2