Henry v. Komarovsky

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 DAVID HENRY, CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05523-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. AMEND COMPLAINT 13 TACOMA POLICE DEPARTMENT et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This motion comes before the Court on Plaintiff David Henry’s Motion to Amend 17 Complaint. Dkt. No. 58. Defendants do not oppose the motion. Dkt. No. 62 at 1. Nor is there any 18 evidence of “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and/or futility.” Owens v. 19 Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks 20 omitted) (quoting Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999)). For those 21 reasons, and because leave to amend should be “freely give[n] . . . when justice so requires,” Fed. 22 R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), the Court GRANTS the motion to amend, Dkt. No. 58. 23 24 1 Mr. Henry shall electronically file a clean (i.e., without highlights or strike-through text) 2 version of his Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 58-1, in the docket as an “Amended Complaint” 3 within 14 days of the date of this Order. 4 Dated this 12th day of April, 2023.

5 A 6 Lauren King United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23