Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01884/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01884-10/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

JUAN JAIMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. HERRERA, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01884 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO AMEND COMPLAINT

[ECF No. 42]

Plaintiff Juan Jaimes, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 21, 2013. 

On October 17, 2014, the Court screened the Complaint and found certain claims 

cognizable. Plaintiff was directed to inform the Court whether he wished to proceed with the 

cognizable claims, or file an amended complaint. On January 23, 2015, Plaintiff notified the 

Court of his willingness to proceed with the cognizable claims. Accordingly, on February 11, 

2015, the Court dismissed all other claims and defendants, and issued service documents to 

Plaintiff for completion and return. On March 4, 2015, Plaintiff returned the completed service 

documents, and on March 10, 2015, the U.S. Marshal was directed to serve Defendants S.

Herrera, M. Lozano, and J. J. Torres. On April 28, 2015, the waiver of service was returned 

executed as to Defendants Herrera and Lozano. On May 19, 2015, Defendants Herrera and 

Lozano filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims for violation of the statute of 

Case 1:13-cv-01884-LJO-SAB Document 46 Filed 11/04/15 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

limitations. Also on the same date, Defendants Herrera and Lozano notified the Court of 

Defendant Torres’ death. On August 11, 2015, the Court issued a Findings and 

Recommendation that recommended Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted. The Findings 

and Recommendation is currently pending before the District Court. On October 28, 2015, 

Defendant Torres was dismissed from the action.

On October 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend the complaint. 

Since Plaintiff has filed this motion more than 21 days after service of a responsive pleading, 

Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that Plaintiff may amend only 

with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave, and leave shall be freely given 

when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, 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) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 (9th 

Cir. 1999)). However, “‘[w]here the party seeking amendment knows or should know of the 

facts upon which the proposed amendment is based but fails to include them in the original 

complaint, the motion to amend may be denied.’” E.E.O.C. v. Boeing, Co., 843 F.2d 1213, 1222 

(9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Jordan v. County of Los Angeles, 669 F.2d 1311, 1324 (9th Cir. 1982), 

vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S. 810, 103 S.Ct. 35 (1982)).

Here, Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint to cure any deficiencies and add new 

defendants and claims. Defendants have not consented to the filing of an amended complaint, 

and Plaintiff offers no showing of cause to grant leave to amend. Furthermore, since Plaintiff 

has already notified the Court of his intent to proceed on the cognizable claims, and Defendants 

have been served with the complaint and filed a response, the Court finds that allowing Plaintiff 

to amend at this time would prejudice Defendants and produce an undue delay in the litigation. 

Additionally, Plaintiff either knew or should have known of the facts upon which the proposed 

amendment is based but failed to include them in the original complaint.

///

Case 1:13-cv-01884-LJO-SAB Document 46 Filed 11/04/15 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

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the 

complaint is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01884-LJO-SAB Document 46 Filed 11/04/15 Page 3 of 3