Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01493/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01493-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Lebron Springs
Plaintiff
United States of America
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

ERIC LEBRON SPRINGS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01493-CDB (PC)

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

CONSIDERATION TO SCREEN 

COMPLAINT

(Docs. 14, 19, 20)

Plaintiff Eric Lebron Springs is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action. (Doc. 1). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file 

an amended complaint and for screening within 60 days. (Docs. 18, 19).

I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend

Pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend a

pleading once as a matter of course 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

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

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

(citation and quotation omitted). The district court may deny a motion to amend where the 

amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue 

delay in litigation; or (4) is futile. Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 (9th Cir. 1999).

Petitioner initiated this action with the filing of his original complaint on October 20, 

Case 1:23-cv-01493-JLT-CDB Document 21 Filed 06/27/24 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

2023. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff filed the operative, first amended complaint on March 27, 2024. (Doc. 

18). In connection with his most recent motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, the 

Court finds no evidence of prejudice, bad faith, undue delay in litigation, or futility. Plaintiff’s 

complaint has not yet been screened and no defendants have been served or otherwise appeared in 

this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to amend will be granted. The second amended 

complaint (Doc. 20) is accepted for filing and will be screened by the Court in due course. 

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Lacey v. 

Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, the Court will screen the second 

amended complaint as a standalone document “complete in itself without reference to the prior or 

superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220.

The Court acknowledges Plaintiff’s second amended complaint alleges a claim pursuant 

the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA); however, Plaintiff’s separate motion to “correct” the docket 

to reflect that this action involves an FTCA claim as compared to a Bivens claim (Doc. 14) will 

be denied as Plaintiff has suffered no injury from the Clerk of the Court’s administration of the 

docket sheet.

II. Plaintiff’s Request for a Status Update

Furthermore, the Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s motion “for consideration of the court to 

screen complaint within 60-Days,” which it construes as a request for a status report. (Doc. 18).

In the informational order, the Court advised Plaintiff: “This Court screens pro se 

plaintiffs’ complaint as expeditiously as possible. However, the Court has an extremely large 

number of pro se plaintiff civil rights cases pending before it, and delay is inevitable.” (Doc. 3 p. 

3). “The Court will not respond in writing to individual inquiries regarding the status of a case.” 

Id. at 4. 

As set out by the informational order, the Court’s commitment to expeditiously screen 

complaints brought by pro se litigants is hampered by the sheer number of civil rights cases 

brought before it. In addition, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint replaces certain claims and 

adds additional facts for the Court’s consideration. As a necessary consequence of Plaintiff’s 

motion to amend being granted, the Court will need to screen Plaintiff’s second amended 

Case 1:23-cv-01493-JLT-CDB Document 21 Filed 06/27/24 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

complaint anew. Plaintiff’s request for a status update therefore will be granted. The second 

amended complaint will be screened in due course.

III. Order

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 19) is GRANTED and the lodged, second amended 

complaint is deemed filed; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to correct claim (Doc. 14) is DENIED; and

3. Plaintiff’s request for a status update (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. The Court will screen 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01493-JLT-CDB Document 21 Filed 06/27/24 Page 3 of 3