Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Long v. United States

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

January 16, 2014

KEVIN MICHAEL LONG, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT (Doc. 12)

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, Kevin Michael Long, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff initiated this matter and consented to jurisdiction of U.S. Magistrate Judge. ( Id. at 5; Doc. 6.) As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court previously screened the Complaint and dismissed the action without leave to amend as frivolous and closed the case - which Plaintiff appealed. (Docs. 4, 7.) The Ninth Circuit ordered that decision vacated and, noting a substantial question regarding Plaintiff's competency to proceed pro se, remanded for further proceedings consistent with Krain v. Smallwood, 880 F.2d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 1989). (Doc. 11.) This action was reopened on December 16, 2013.

On January 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Motion to File Amended Complaint in C/O Arnold Swarrzznneggerrs [sic] Union Governorship [sic] of California" (Doc. 12) which is construed as a motion to amend the Complaint.

"Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires.'" AmericsourceBerquen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006); ref Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir.1999). "But a district court need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile." Id . ref Bowles, at 758; Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir.1990). The latter of these exceptions is applicable in this case.

As noted in the first screening order in this case, Plaintiff's allegations in this action are frivolous, fanciful, and incoherent. The present motion is no different. The first lines in this motion state, "IN COMPLETION AND RESPECT OF PAULY CLASSES MURDER AND FATHERS NEED TO FIND AN ANSWER TO THESE SEXUAL NATIONAL PROBLEMS JMAJOR DEFECTS, THAT I' HAVE OVERCOME AND AM GOVERNING AS AMBASSODORSHIP OF GOD JESUS CHRIST ASSEMBLY OF AMERICA NORTH AND MAN STIMULUS PLANS OF A WONDERFUL WORLD TOMORROW WORLD FUTURE SOCIETY WITHIN OUR UNION PERFECTLY AS THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA WHO TRULY ARE GRATEFUL TO ALMIGHT GOD FOR OUR FREEDOM. FOR THERE IS NO OTHER PEOPLE IN OUR NATION BUT THESE WORHSIPERS OF GOD I SERVE IN UNION WITH THESE ABOVE MY PHILADELPHIA CHURCH OF GOD UNIVERSE RELIGION WITH GERALD FLURRY FAMILY."[1] Plaintiff's motion is incomprehensible and contains neither any discussion of why amendment should be allowed, nor promise of coherence in an amended complaint if his motion were granted. It is only through liberal construction of the title of this motion that allows it to be construed as a motion to amend the complaint based on a few choice words used at the top of the first page. Justice does not require granting leave to amend in this case as to do so would be futile.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, filed on January 8, 2014 (Doc. 12), is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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