Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00843/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00843-4/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

DAMEN D. RABB,

Plaintiff,

v.

ESTEVEN FIGUEROA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RETURN PROPOSED FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT LODGED ON FEBRUARY 5, 

2024 TO PLAINTIFF

(ECF No. 28)

Plaintiff Isaiah J. Petillo is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 28, 2023, Defendants Chavez and Figueroa filed an answer to Plaintiff’s 

complaint. (ECF No. 16.) 

On October 30, 2023, the Court issued an amended discovery and scheduling order, 

setting the deadline to amend the pleading as January 30, 2024. (ECF No. 27.) 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint which was lodged by the 

Court on February 5, 2024. (ECF No. 28.)

A plaintiff may file one amended complaint without leave (permission) of Court before 

any defendant has answered your original complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). After any 

defendant has filed an answer, you must file a motion for leave to amend and lodge (submit) a 

proposed amended complaint. L.R. 137(c). Because Defendants have already answered the 

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 29 Filed 02/08/24 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

complaint, Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern whether plaintiff may 

amend. Under Rule 15(a)(2), “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s 

written consent or the court’s leave” and the “court should freely give leave when justice so 

requires.” However, a “district court does not err in denying leave to amend where the 

amendment would be futile.” Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991). Further, 

leave to amend may be denied where “undue prejudice to the opposing party” would result. 

Moore v. Kayport Package Express, 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989).

Here, Plaintiff did not request nor obtain leave of the Court to file a first amended 

complaint, and the filing of the first amended complaint was improper. In addition, the Court’s 

discovery and scheduling provides for a deadline to amend the pleadings, but does not afford the 

automatic right to amend the pleadings. Thus, although leave to amend should be freely given 

when justice so requires, it appears Plaintiff made no attempt to obtain Defendants’ consent or the 

Court’s permission through a motion to amend prior to lodging his first amended complaint. 

Accordingly, the Clerk of Court shall return the first amended complaint lodged on February 5, 

2024 to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 28.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 29 Filed 02/08/24 Page 2 of 2