1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ILIAS DZHATDOEV, Case No. 1:25-cv-01457-JLT-CDB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S RENEWED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 13 v. AMENDED PETITION
14 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE (Doc. 15) ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 7-Day Deadline Defendants. 16 Clerk of the Court to Docket First Amended Petition as Operative Petition 17 18 Petitioner Ilias Dzhatdoev (“Petitioner”), a federal detainee, proceeds with a petition for 19 writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). On October 31, 2025, Petitioner 20 filed the instant petition while in custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the 21 Golden State Annex, located in McFarland, California. Id. 22 Background 23 On January 8, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion to amend the petition. (Doc. 8). The Court 24 denied the motion without prejudice for failure to attach the proposed amended petition, as required 25 by the Local Rules. (Doc. 12). Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s renewed motion to amend 26 the petition, filed on January 9, 2026. (Doc. 15). The Court finds Petitioner’s renewed motion ripe 27 for ruling without awaiting further briefing. In the motion, Petitioner states that, on January 8, 2026, he retained counsel, “who has 1 developed additional legal theories and factual details supporting his claims.” Id. at 3-4. Petitioner 2 states that the case is at an early stage; Respondents have not filed a response to the petition; there 3 is no evidence of bad faith, dilatory motive, or repeated failure to cure deficiencies; and amendment 4 would not cause undue prejudice to Respondents, who have “ample time to address the amended 5 petition in their forthcoming response.” Id. at 5. Petitioner attaches to his motion a proposed first 6 amended petition. (Doc. 15-1). 7 Governing Law 8 Rule 15 permits a petitioner to amend the complaint once as a matter of course no later than 9 21 days after service of the complaint or 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or motion 10 to dismiss, whichever is earlier. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). After such time has passed or 11 petitioner has once amended their complaint, amendment may only be by leave of the court or by 12 written consent of the adverse parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Rule 15(a) is very liberal” and a 13 court should freely give leave to amend when “justice so requires.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. 14 Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006); see Chodos v. W. Publ. Co., 292 F.3d 992, 15 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (“it is generally our policy to permit amendment with ‘extreme liberality’”) 16 (quoting Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir.1990)). 17 Granting or denying leave to amend a complaint under Rule 15 is within the discretion of 18 the court. Swanson v. United States Forest Service, 87 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996). “In exercising 19 this discretion, a court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision 20 on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 21 979 (9th Cir, 1981); Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr., 649 F.3d 1143, 1152 (9th Cir. 2011) (“refusing 22 Chudacoff leave to amend a technical pleading error, albeit one he should have noticed earlier, 23 would run contrary to Rule 15(a)’s intent.”). 24 A court ordinarily considers five factors in assessing whether to grant leave to amend: “(1) 25 bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) 26 whether the plaintiff has previously amended its complaint.” Western Shoshone Nat’l Council v. 27 Molini, 951 F.2d 200, 204 (9th Cir. 1991). The factors are not weighed equally. Bonin v. Calderon, 1 *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2011) (the five factors “need not all be considered in each case”). Undue 2 delay, “by itself … is insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.” Bowles v. Reade, 198 3 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir. 1999). On the other hand, futility of amendment and prejudice to the 4 opposing party can, by themselves, justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend. Bonin, 59 5 F.3d at 845; see Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (the 6 consideration of prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest weight). 7 In conducting this five-factor analysis, the court generally grants all inferences in favor of 8 permitting amendment. Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). 9 Moreover, the court must be mindful that, for each of these factors, the party opposing amendment 10 has the burden of showing that amendment is not warranted. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 11 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). 12 Discussion 13 The Court addresses the relevant factors set forth in Western Shoshone Nat’l Council v. 14 Molini below. 15 A. Bad Faith 16 A motion to amend is made in bad faith where there is “evidence in the record which would 17 indicate a wrongful motive” on the part of the litigant requesting leave to amend. DCD Programs, 18 833 F.2d at 187; Wizards of the Coast LLC v. Cryptozoic Entm’t LLC, 309 F.R.D. 645, 651 (W.D. 19 Wash. 2015) (“In the context of a motion for leave to amend, ‘bad faith’ means acting with intent 20 to deceive, harass, mislead, delay, or disrupt.”) (citing Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 961 21 (9th Cir. 2006)). 22 Here, there is no information before the Court suggesting bad faith on the part of Petitioner 23 in seeking leave to amend. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of amendment. 24 B. Undue Delay 25 By itself, a showing of undue delay is insufficient to deny leave to amend pleadings. Howey 26 v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1191 (9th Cir. 1973); DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 186. However, 27 in combination with other factors, delay may be sufficient to deny amendment. Webb, 655 F.2d at 1 (substantial delay, while not dispositive, is relevant to whether to permit amendment). In assessing 2 whether there exists undue delay, a court shall consider if “the moving party knew or should have 3 known the facts and theories raised by the amendment in the original pleading.” Jackson v. Bank 4 of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). The mere fact that a party fails 5 to offer a reason for not moving to amend earlier does not in itself constitute an adequate basis for 6 denying leave to amend. Howey, 481 F.2d at 1190-91.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ILIAS DZHATDOEV, Case No. 1:25-cv-01457-JLT-CDB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S RENEWED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 13 v. AMENDED PETITION
14 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE (Doc. 15) ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 7-Day Deadline Defendants. 16 Clerk of the Court to Docket First Amended Petition as Operative Petition 17 18 Petitioner Ilias Dzhatdoev (“Petitioner”), a federal detainee, proceeds with a petition for 19 writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). On October 31, 2025, Petitioner 20 filed the instant petition while in custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the 21 Golden State Annex, located in McFarland, California. Id. 22 Background 23 On January 8, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion to amend the petition. (Doc. 8). The Court 24 denied the motion without prejudice for failure to attach the proposed amended petition, as required 25 by the Local Rules. (Doc. 12). Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s renewed motion to amend 26 the petition, filed on January 9, 2026. (Doc. 15). The Court finds Petitioner’s renewed motion ripe 27 for ruling without awaiting further briefing. In the motion, Petitioner states that, on January 8, 2026, he retained counsel, “who has 1 developed additional legal theories and factual details supporting his claims.” Id. at 3-4. Petitioner 2 states that the case is at an early stage; Respondents have not filed a response to the petition; there 3 is no evidence of bad faith, dilatory motive, or repeated failure to cure deficiencies; and amendment 4 would not cause undue prejudice to Respondents, who have “ample time to address the amended 5 petition in their forthcoming response.” Id. at 5. Petitioner attaches to his motion a proposed first 6 amended petition. (Doc. 15-1). 7 Governing Law 8 Rule 15 permits a petitioner to amend the complaint once as a matter of course no later than 9 21 days after service of the complaint or 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or motion 10 to dismiss, whichever is earlier. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). After such time has passed or 11 petitioner has once amended their complaint, amendment may only be by leave of the court or by 12 written consent of the adverse parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Rule 15(a) is very liberal” and a 13 court should freely give leave to amend when “justice so requires.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. 14 Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006); see Chodos v. W. Publ. Co., 292 F.3d 992, 15 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (“it is generally our policy to permit amendment with ‘extreme liberality’”) 16 (quoting Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir.1990)). 17 Granting or denying leave to amend a complaint under Rule 15 is within the discretion of 18 the court. Swanson v. United States Forest Service, 87 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996). “In exercising 19 this discretion, a court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision 20 on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 21 979 (9th Cir, 1981); Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr., 649 F.3d 1143, 1152 (9th Cir. 2011) (“refusing 22 Chudacoff leave to amend a technical pleading error, albeit one he should have noticed earlier, 23 would run contrary to Rule 15(a)’s intent.”). 24 A court ordinarily considers five factors in assessing whether to grant leave to amend: “(1) 25 bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) 26 whether the plaintiff has previously amended its complaint.” Western Shoshone Nat’l Council v. 27 Molini, 951 F.2d 200, 204 (9th Cir. 1991). The factors are not weighed equally. Bonin v. Calderon, 1 *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2011) (the five factors “need not all be considered in each case”). Undue 2 delay, “by itself … is insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.” Bowles v. Reade, 198 3 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir. 1999). On the other hand, futility of amendment and prejudice to the 4 opposing party can, by themselves, justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend. Bonin, 59 5 F.3d at 845; see Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (the 6 consideration of prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest weight). 7 In conducting this five-factor analysis, the court generally grants all inferences in favor of 8 permitting amendment. Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). 9 Moreover, the court must be mindful that, for each of these factors, the party opposing amendment 10 has the burden of showing that amendment is not warranted. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 11 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). 12 Discussion 13 The Court addresses the relevant factors set forth in Western Shoshone Nat’l Council v. 14 Molini below. 15 A. Bad Faith 16 A motion to amend is made in bad faith where there is “evidence in the record which would 17 indicate a wrongful motive” on the part of the litigant requesting leave to amend. DCD Programs, 18 833 F.2d at 187; Wizards of the Coast LLC v. Cryptozoic Entm’t LLC, 309 F.R.D. 645, 651 (W.D. 19 Wash. 2015) (“In the context of a motion for leave to amend, ‘bad faith’ means acting with intent 20 to deceive, harass, mislead, delay, or disrupt.”) (citing Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 961 21 (9th Cir. 2006)). 22 Here, there is no information before the Court suggesting bad faith on the part of Petitioner 23 in seeking leave to amend. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of amendment. 24 B. Undue Delay 25 By itself, a showing of undue delay is insufficient to deny leave to amend pleadings. Howey 26 v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1191 (9th Cir. 1973); DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 186. However, 27 in combination with other factors, delay may be sufficient to deny amendment. Webb, 655 F.2d at 1 (substantial delay, while not dispositive, is relevant to whether to permit amendment). In assessing 2 whether there exists undue delay, a court shall consider if “the moving party knew or should have 3 known the facts and theories raised by the amendment in the original pleading.” Jackson v. Bank 4 of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). The mere fact that a party fails 5 to offer a reason for not moving to amend earlier does not in itself constitute an adequate basis for 6 denying leave to amend. Howey, 481 F.2d at 1190-91. Whether there has been “undue delay” 7 should be considered in the context of (1) the length of the delay measured from the time the moving 8 party obtained relevant facts; (2) whether discovery has closed; and (3) proximity to the trial date. 9 Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 798-99 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 The Court finds no indication of undue delay in bringing the motion to amend. Petitioner 11 initiated the action, proceeding pro se, on October 31, 2025, and retained counsel on January 8, 12 2026. (Docs. 1, 7). The motion to amend was filed on January 8, 2026, and the renewed motion 13 on January 9, 2026. (Docs. 8, 15). As such, this factor weighs in favor of amendment. 14 C. Prejudice to Opposing Party 15 The most critical factor in determining whether to grant leave to amend is prejudice to the 16 opposing party. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. The burden of showing prejudice is on the 17 party opposing an amendment to the complaint. DCD Programs, Ltd., 833 F.2d at 187. There is a 18 presumption in favor of granting leave to amend where prejudice is not shown under Rule 15(a). 19 Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. 20 Here, Respondents have not filed their response to the petition. Indeed, the Court ordered 21 Respondents to show cause in writing for their failure to file any such response by the January 5, 22 2026, deadline. See (Docs. 3, 14). The order to show cause remains outstanding and Respondents 23 have not yet filed their response thereto. As such, this factor weighs in favor of amendment. 24 D. Prior Amendments and Futility of Amendment 25 The Court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is “particularly broad” where a party has 26 previously amended the pleading. Allen v. Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990). A 27 court may deny leave to amend if the proposed amendment is futile or would be subject to dismissal. 1 | futile if the complaint clearly could not be saved by amendment. United States v. Corinthian 2 | Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011). However, denial of leave to amend on futility grounds 3 | is “rare.” Zurich Am. Ins. Co. of Illinois v. VForce Inc., No. 2:18-cv-02066-TLN-CKD, 2020 WL 4 | 2732046, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 26, 2020) (citing Netbula, LLC vy. Distinct Corp., 212 F.R.D. 534, 5 | 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003)). “Ordinarily, ‘courts will defer consideration of challenges to the merits of 6 || a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is granted and the amended pleading is 7 | filed.’ Id. 8 Here, Plaintiffs proposed amendments would constitute the first amendment to the petition. 9 | Petitioner represents that amendment would not be futile because the Petitioner has retained counsel 10 | who has identified additional relevant facts and legal theories (Doc. 15 at 3-4). The Court finds no 11 | clear indication of futility on the face of the proposed first amended petition (Doc. 15-1). Thus, 12 | this factor weighs in favor of granting leave to amend. 13 Because the factors enunciated in Western Shoshone Nat'l Council v. Molini weigh 14 | substantially in favor of amendment, the Court will grant Petitioner’s motion for leave to amend 15 | the petition. 16 Conclusion and Order 17 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 18 1. Petitioner’s renewed motion for leave to file a first amended petition (Doc. 15) is 19 GRANTED (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)); 20 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to adjust the docket to reflect the first amended 21 petition attached to the motion (Doc. 15-1) as the operative petition; 22 3. Respondents SHALL FILE their response to the first amended petition within seven (7) 23 days of entry of this order. 24 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 29 Dated: _ January 12, 2026 | br Pr 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28