United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND THE
COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 35]
Michael Purtue is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to amend the
complaint, filed December 21, 2016.
April 29, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint
and directed Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint or
notify the Court of intent to proceed on claim found to be
cognizable. (ECF No. 7.)
filed a first amended complaint on May 18, 2016. On July 11,
2016, the Court found that Plaintiff's first amended
complaint stated a cognizable failure to protect claim
against Defendants J. Chavez, G. Eberle, J. Emerson, L.
Lundy, D. Magallance, B. Mello, Meyers, S. Rizer and R.
December 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file
an amended complaint, along with a proposed second amended
complaint which was lodged by the Court. (ECF Nos. 35, 36.)
December 27, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies.
Plaintiff filed an opposition on February 17, 2017.
February 21, 2017, Defendants filed an opposition to
Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint.
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party
may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course
twenty-one days after serving, or if a response was filed,
within twenty-one days after service of the response.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1). 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).
15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be
freely given when justice so requires.'”
AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465
F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)).
However, courts “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 the
litigation; or (4) is futile.” AmerisourceBergen
Corp., 465 F.3d at 951. Relevant to the futility factor,
a plaintiff may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated
parties in a single action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a), 20(a)(2);
Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011);
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
instance, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend because
“[s]ince the filing of the Complaint ...