Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00606/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00606-12/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

AHKEEM WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM PEDRIERO, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-00606-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL 

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 42)

Plaintiff Akheem Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 17, 2012. This action is proceeding 

against Defendants Garcia, Valdiz, Cortez, Silva, Castro, Day, Stephens, Collier, Torres, Delia, 

and Tordson for use of excessive physical force, in violation of the United States Constitution. 

On August 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Defendants 

did not file a response.1 Local Rule 230(l).

“Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so 

requires.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(quoting 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. 

 

1 The motion lacked a proof of service, an issue which was addressed in a separate concurrently filed order.

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SKO Document 59 Filed 10/03/13 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

In this instance, Plaintiff’s failure to include a proposed amended complaint precludes the 

Court from evaluating whether leave to amend should be granted. Based on that procedural 

deficiency, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice to 

renewal within thirty (30) days.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2 The deadline for amending the pleadings was September 12, 2013. Given that Plaintiff’s motion to amend was 

timely filed and he is proceeding pro se, the Court will permit him a limited period of thirty days within which to 

renew his motion. If Plaintiff elects to file another motion for leave to amend accompanied by a proposed amended 

complaint within the next thirty days, he is placed on notice that the amended complaint must be complete within 

itself, as it will supercede his present complaint, should leave to amend be granted. Local Rule 220; Lacey v. 

Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SKO Document 59 Filed 10/03/13 Page 2 of 2