Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stephen Garcia v. Martin

February 6, 2012

STEPHEN GARCIA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MARTIN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ADD CASE CITE INFORMATION (ECF No. 14)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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.)

On January 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a 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.) The Court denied this motion on February 3, 2012. (ECF No. 13.)

On January 25, 2012, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Add Case Cite Information. (ECF No. 14.)

On February 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed Objections to Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 15.)

II. APPLICABLE LAW

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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.