Burnell v. Hasan

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00683
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOE BABY BURNELL, Case No.: 24cv0683-LL-MSB CDCR #P-76460, 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART Plaintiff, 13 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR vs. EXTENSION OF TIME TO SEEK 14 LEAVE TO AMEND MONTGOMERY, et al., 15 Defendants. [ECF No. 30] 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 20 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. On March 12, 2025, Defendant filed an 21 answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 21. Plaintiff now files a 22 Motion for Extension of Time to seek leave to amend his operative complaint. ECF No. 23 30. Plaintiff states: “I am denied, delayed, and interfered with access [sic] to the law library 24 on ‘A’ Facility.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff states that he intends to file a Third Amended Complaint 25 and asks for an extension from August 15, 2025 to September 14, 2025. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff 26 signed his Motion on August 13, 2025, the Court received it on September 5, 2025, and it 27 was docketed on September 9, 2025. See Docket. Pursuant to the operative scheduling 28 order in this case, issued on July 2, 2025, any motion to amend pleadings shall be filed on 1 before August 15, 2025. ECF No. 29. 2 Court approval is required to amend a complaint after an answer has been filed. See 3 || Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Whether to grant such a motion is within the court’s sound discretion. 4 ||See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330-31, 91 S.Ct. 795, 5 L.Ed.2d 77 (.... However, motions to amend are to be granted freely when justice so 6 requires); see also Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051-53 (9th 7 || Cir. 2003). Grounds for denial of leave include undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, 8 || repeated failure to cure deficiencies by prior amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing 9 || party by allowing the amendment, and futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 10 || 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). Judicial economy may also be considered. 11 || Sierra Club v. Union Oil Co., 813 F.2d 1480, 1493 (9th Cir.1987). 12 Here, because an answer has already been filed in this case, Plaintiff cannot file a 13 ||Motion to Amend the operative complaint without leave of court or a filing of Non- 14 ||Opposition from Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to 15 || seek leave to amend his operative complaint is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs deadline 16 || to seek leave to amend his operative complaint is extended until November 10, 2025. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: September 30, 2025 NO 19 DE | 20 Honorable Linda Lopez 51 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2