Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01740/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01740-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wayne Frazee
Defendant
Olivia Moreno
Defendant
Cosme Presas
Plaintiff
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York
Defendant

Document Text:

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

COSME PRESAS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT 

SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01740---SKO 

ORDER DENYING AS PREMATURE

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE 

COMPLAINT AND ACCEPTING 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AS FILED

(Doc. 8)

On November 7, 2014, Plaintiff Cosme Presas (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro 

se and in forma pauperis, filed this action against Defendants Watchtower Bible and Tract Society 

(“the Society”), Olivia Moreno, Wayne Frazee, and several Doe defendants (collectively 

“Defendants”). (Doc. 1.) 

On January 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint and concurrently filed 

a First Amended Complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). As no defendant has yet been served, Plaintiff 

is entitled to file a first amended complaint as a matter of right. Therefore, Plaintiff may file a first 

amended complaint without leave of court and his motion shall be denied as premature. Id. 

After this first amendment, however, Plaintiff may amend his pleading only with the 

opposing parties’ written consent or with the court’s leave. Id. The factors commonly considered 

Case 1:14-cv-01740-LJO-SKO Document 12 Filed 02/17/15 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

to determine the propriety of a motion for leave to amend are: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) 

prejudice to the opposing party, and (4) futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 

(1962); AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006). 

The Court hereby accepts Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and deems it filed as 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint concurrently with this Order. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is DENIED as premature; and,

2. Plaintiff’s concurrently filed First Amended Complaint is accepted and deemed the 

operative complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01740-LJO-SKO Document 12 Filed 02/17/15 Page 2 of 2