IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 8, 2011
LUIS VALENZUELA RODRIGUEZ,
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Alfred T. Goodwin United States Circuit Judge
ORDER: DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT; GRANTING 30-DAY EXTENSION TO COMPLETE SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS CAGEL AND MCNEIL
In response to the court's October 4, 2011 screening order (Docket No. 75), Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a fifth amended complaint (Docket No. 77). Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration in support of the motion. (Docket No. 78.) Plaintiff also filed a response to the court's order to show cause requesting a 30-day extension to complete service on defendants Cagel and McNeil. (Docket No. 76.) After consideration of Plaintiff's filings, the court DENIES the motion for leave to amend and GRANTS Plaintiff's request for a 30-day extension for the following reasons.
In light of the protracted procedural history of this case, extensively detailed in the October 4 screening order, the court finds that further amendment is redundant and futile. See Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 90 F.3d 351, 355-56 (9th Cir. 1996) ("the district court's discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is DENIED.
Plaintiff advised the court that he has engaged the services of a private investigator to obtain the information needed to complete service on defendants Cagel and McNeil. This explanation supports an extension of time to pursue this information. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time is GRANTED and Plaintiff is ORDERED to complete service on Cagel and McNeil within 30 days of the date of this order.
Alfred T. Goodwin
ALFRED T. GOODWIN United States Circuit Judge Sitting by designation
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.