Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00110/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00110-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Carlos Hernandez
Plaintiff

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

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his social security complaint on January 22, 2015. Doc. 

1. On February 2, 2015, this Court screened the complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend. 

Doc. 5. On April 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint (Doc. 14), which the Court 

ordered served on the Commissioner. On May 15, 2015, this case was consolidated with another 

case filed by Plaintiff (1:15-cv-00262-SKO). Doc. 16. That case had already set a scheduling 

order. On December 17, 2015, Plaintiff sent a document to the Court titled, “A short summary of 

my disabilities.” Doc. 28. It describes Plaintiff’s symptoms and limitations, and gives a narrative 

of his disability. By the time this was filed, the Court had not yet issued a scheduling order 

regarding briefing in this matter. This document is most similar to an amendment to the first 

amended complaint; hence, the Court treats it as a motion to file an amendment to the first 

amended complaint.

I. DISCUSSION

Leave to amend “shall be given freely when justice so requires.” FRCP 15(a). “But a 

district court need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing 

CARLOS HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-110-DAD-SMS 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO FILE AN AMENDMENT TO 

THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Doc. 28

Case 1:15-cv-00110-DAD-GSA Document 29 Filed 02/02/16 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

party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.” 

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

Here, Plaintiff is proceeding in pro se, and his amendment largely reiterates the claims in 

his first amended complaint. It does not prejudice the Commissioner, it does not appear to be 

sought in bad faith, it does not produce an undue delay in litigation, and it may serve to clarify 

some of Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to amend the first amended complaint will 

be granted. The document received by the Court on December 17, 2015 titled, “A short summary 

of my disabilities” (Doc. 28) will not supersede the first amended complaint, but will be treated as 

an amendment to the first amended complaint. The parties are still required to file briefing of the 

issues. 

II. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is 

GRANTED as discussed above. The Commissioner may, but is not required to, file objections to 

this order within fourteen (14) days of entry of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00110-DAD-GSA Document 29 Filed 02/02/16 Page 2 of 2