IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 14, 2012
MICHAEL BAKER, PLAINTIFF,
PEREZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's November 2, 2012 motion to file an amended complaint. For the following reasons, this motion is denied.
Plaintiff seeks leave to amend so that he may "clarify issues" based on evidence obtained at the close of discovery. Plaintiff does not describe his proposed amendments. Plaintiff also did not file a proposed amended complaint.
Because plaintiff did not file a proposed amended complaint, the court is unable to evaluate his motion for leave to amend. On this ground, his motion to amend is denied.
The undersigned also observes that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) requires that the court "freely give leave" to amend "when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). "Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint." Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004).
In the instant case, discovery has long since closed. On October 23, 2012, the court vacated defendants' summary judgment motion and ordered defendants to file a comprehensive renewed summary judgment motion within thirty days. Allowing plaintiff to file an amended complaint at this late stage of the litigation would prejudice defendants and the court. Plaintiff has also not demonstrated good cause as to why he did not bring his motion to amend sooner. For these reasons, the court would not look favorably on a renewed motion to amend accompanied by a proposed amended complaint.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 119) is denied.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.