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.

Clay Edward Lopez v. S. Shiesha

December 21, 2012

CLAY EDWARD LOPEZ,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
S. SHIESHA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ECF Nos. 16)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Clay Edward Lopez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed on January 17, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Consent, ECF No. 5.)

On July 3, 2012, Plaintiff's Complaint was dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. (Order Dismiss. Compl., ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on November 16, 2012. (First Am. Compl., ECF No. 15.) The Court screened the First Amended Complaint and found a cognizable Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claim against Defendant Ross and a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Baker, but no other claims. On December 3, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Langham, Thompson, Gonzalez, Stainer, and the Does, be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff also was ordered to either file an amended complaint curing identified deficiencies in his claim against Defendant Shiesha or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on his cognizable claims. (Order Dismiss. First Am. Compl., ECF No. 17.)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's November 26, 2012 motion seeking to supplement the First Amended Complaint with allegations and exhibits and for injunctive relief. (Mot. to Supp., ECF No. 16.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Supplemental Pleading

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend his 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 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). Amended pleadings must be complete within themselves without reference to another pleading. Partial amendments are not permissible. Local Rule 220.

B. Injunctive Relief

Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an "extraordinary remedy, never awarded as of right." Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). "A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009), quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22.

Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), which requires that the Court find the "relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the federal right."

Injunctive relief should be used "sparingly, and only . . . in clear and plain case[s]." Rizzo v. ...


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.