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.

Purtue v. Kearnes

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 10, 2017

MICHAEL PURTUE, Plaintiff,
v.
B. KEARNES, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 35]

         Plaintiff Michael Purtue is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, filed December 21, 2016.

         I.

         RELEVANT HISTORY

         On 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.)

         Plaintiff 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. Sanchez.[1]

         On 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.)

         On 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.

         On February 21, 2017, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint.

         II.

         DISCUSSION

         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 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).

         Rule 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).

         In this instance, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend because “[s]ince the filing of the Complaint ...


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.