UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 25, 2012
CURTIS RENEE JACKSON,
Y. A. YATES, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 28) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Curtis Renee Jackson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the first amended complaint, filed February 15, 2012, against Defendants Daley, Gonzales, Mendez, Nichols, Samonte, and Valdez for violation of the Eighth Amendment. On April 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave to amend his complaint to correct the date of the incident alleged.
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. 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). "Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend 'shall be freely 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 this instance, Plaintiff has previously filed an amended complaint, and therefore, he may not amend without leave of the court.
In his motion Plaintiff requests that a hearing be set for his motion to amend. The Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary. Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint shall be granted for the sole purpose of correcting the date of the incident alleged in the first amended complaint.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint for the sole purpose of amending the date of the incident alleged.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.