Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01214/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01214-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Zachery Jones
Defendant
Thomas K. Mills
Plaintiff
Javier Rivera
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS K. MILLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZACHERY JONES, et al.

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-01214-JLT-SAB (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO FILE LODGED FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 32)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983.

On December 26, 2023, Plaintiff submitted a first amended complaint which was lodged 

by the Court. (ECF No. 32.) 

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party's 

pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is 

one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 

21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(1). Otherwise, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written 

consent or the court's leave, and the court should freely give leave when justice so requires. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 

///

Case 1:23-cv-01214-JLT-SAB Document 35 Filed 01/03/24 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

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

requires.’ ” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (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. The factor of “ ‘[u]ndue delay by itself ... is insufficient 

to justify denying a motion to amend.’ ” Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 

708, 712, 713 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 (9th Cir. 1999)).

Here, as Plaintiff has not previously amended the complaint and the amended complaint 

was filed within 21 days of service of the complaint, the Clerk of Court is HEREBY DIRECTED 

to file Plaintiff’s amended complaint, lodged on December 26, 2023, which is now the operative 

complaint in this action.

1

 (ECF No. 32.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 The amended complaint reiterates repeats Plaintiff’s factual allegations against Defendants Zachery Jones and 

Javier Rivera giving rise to a cognizable claim for the use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

Case 1:23-cv-01214-JLT-SAB Document 35 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 2