United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND THE
COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT TO BE FILED
WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER
[ECF No. 64]
time this action was filed, Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee was
a civil detainee proceeding pro se in a civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained
pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code §
6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within
the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v.
Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000).
action is proceeding against Defendants Redding and Blanco
for excessive force.
August 2, 2016, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint.
On August 4, 2016, the Court issued the discovery and
January 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the
complaint. On March 15, 2017, Defendants filed a statement of
non-opposition to Plaintiff's motion.
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).
The burden to demonstrate prejudice falls upon the party
opposing the amendment. DCD Programs, Ltd. v.
Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). Absent
prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining three
factors, a presumptions exists under Rule 15(a) in favor of
granting leave to amend. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon,
Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).
seeks to amend the complaint to add additional Defendants who
were disclosed during discovery. Defendants have submitted a
statement of non-opposition. Allowing parties to amend based
on information obtained through discovery is common and well
established. Fru-Con Constr. Corp. v. Sacramento Mun.
Util. Dist., No. CIV. S-05-583 LKK/GGH, 2006 WL 3733815,
*15-16 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2006). In this instance, the Court
finds that granting Plaintiff's motion to amend would not
prejudice Defendants Redding or Blanco, it was not brought in
bad faith nor does it produce undue delay in the litigation
as the motion was filed prior to deadline set forth in the
Court's August 4, 2016, scheduling order, and amendment
on its face does not appear futile. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's motion to amend will be granted.
on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff s motion to amend the complaint is granted;
2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this
order, Plaintiff may file a third ...