The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND (ECF No. 12)
On September 20, 2011, Plaintiff, while at liberty and proceeding pro se, paid the filing fee and filed a Complaint raising legal malpractice and civil rights claims against Fresno County. (ECF No. 1.)
On September 29, 2011, this action was transferred from United States District Court for the Central District to this Court. (ECF No. 4.)
On December 13, 2011, Plaintiff Filed a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 7.) On January 23, 2012, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations for Dismissal of Plaintiff's Action ("F&R") for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, with objections due by February 27, 2012. (ECF No. 10.) The F&R remains pending subject to consideration of objections, if any are filed by the deadline.
On January 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Amend the First Amended Complaint, seeking to add a claim for race discrimination against the Fresno County Sheriff's Department. (ECF No. 12.)
In the case of a motion for an amended pleading, 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 at any time before a responsive pleading is served.*fn1 Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court, or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a).
Plaintiff amended once by filing a First Amended Complaint. The opposing parties have not consented to further amendment. Therefore, Plaintiff may not file a second amended complaint without leave of the Court.
"Rule 15(a) is liberal and leave to amend shall be given when justice so requires. Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)). "In determining whether to grant leave to amend, the court considers five factors: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended his complaint. Bolbol v. City of Daly City, 754 F.Supp.2d 1095, 1119 (N.D.Cal. November 17, 2010) (citing Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004)).
Amended pleadings must be complete within themselves without reference to another pleading. Partial amendments are not permissible. Local Rule 220.
Plaintiff's motion faces denial on several grounds. The proposed amendment is not a complete amended pleading. Plaintiff provides no factual basis for his proposed race discrimination claim. He provides no basis for subject matter jurisdiction thereon.
As noted, amended pleadings must be complete within themselves without reference to another pleading. Plaintiff improperly asks to file an amendment to his ...