Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01725/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01725-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Angelo Quintin Downey
Plaintiff
K. Prosper
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

Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 16), filed on January 3, 2006, will be 1

addressed by separate findings and recommendations issued herewith.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGELO QUINTIN DOWNEY, No. CIV S-04-1725-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

K. PROSPER,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.-PC. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (Doc.

17), filed on January 12, 2006.1

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her

pleading “. . . once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Once a responsive pleading is filed, a party’s pleadings may only be

amended upon leave of court or stipulation of all the parties. See id. Where leave of court to

amend is sought, the court considers the following factors: (1) whether there is a reasonable

Case 2:04-cv-01725-GEB-CMK Document 19 Filed 04/06/06 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

2

relationship between the original and amended pleadings; (2) whether the grant of leave to

amend is in the interest of judicial economy and will promote the speedy resolution of the entire

controversy; (3) whether there was a delay in seeking leave to amend; (4) whether the grant of

leave to amend would delay a trial on the merits of the original claim; and (5) whether the

opposing party will be prejudiced by amendment. See Jackson v. Bank of Hawai’i, 902 F.2d

1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). Leave to amend should be denied where the proposed amendment is

frivolous. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).

Because defendant filed a responsive pleading on January 3, 2006 – before

plaintiff sought leave to amend – plaintiff properly seeks a court order. In its entirety, plaintiff’s

request is as follows:

I, Angelo Quintin Downey, request leave of this court . . . to amend my

complaint # CIV. 04-1725 as to F.R.C.V.P 15. Amend part will be the

Remedies/Reliefs.

Because no proposed amended complaint was provided with the motion, it is impossible for the

court to evaluate whether there is any relationship between the proposed amendment to the

request for relief and the original complaint. For example, if plaintiff’s amendment sought to

add a request for relief against parties not named in the complaint, this condition would not be

met. Therefore, leave to amend will not be granted at this time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to

amend is denied.

DATED: April 6, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01725-GEB-CMK Document 19 Filed 04/06/06 Page 2 of 2