Morrey Selck v. County of Sacramento

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MORREY SELCK, Case No. 2:25-cv-1761-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Several filings occurred in rapid succession in this case: plaintiff filed a first amended 18 complaint on August 25, 2025, ECF No. 10, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the first amended 19 complaint on September 2, 2025, ECF No. 11, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint also on 20 September 2, 2025, ECF No. 14, and defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended 21 complaint on September 3, 2025, ECF No. 13.1 After plaintiff failed to respond to defendant’s 22 latest motion to dismiss, on October 10, 2025, the court ordered plaintiff to file show cause for his 23 failure to respond to the motion. ECF No. 17. In response, on October 28, 2025, plaintiff filed a 24 third amended complaint, ECF No. 18. 25 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a party may amend its pleading once as a 26 matter of course within twenty-one days of serving it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Further 27 1 It appears that defendant filed the second motion to dismiss because it improperly 28 noticed the hearing before Chief Judge Nunley and re-noticed it before the undersigned thereafter. 1 | amendment of the pleadings is allowed with the opposing party’s consent or leave of the court. 2 | Id. 15(a)(2). The factors considered when determining whether to grant leave to amend include 3 | “(1) bad faith on the part of the movant; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; and 4 | (4) futility of the proposed amendment.” Ciampi v. City of Palo Alto, No. 09-CV-02655-LHK, 5 | 2010 WL 5174013, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2010) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 6 | (1962)). 7 Plaintiff served his initial complaint on July 8, 2025. ECF No. 8. Accordingly, plaintiff 8 || was permitted to amend his complaint as a matter of course by July 29, 2025. Plaintiff, however, 9 | filed his first amended complaint on August 25, 2025, well after the twenty-one days permitted by 10 | Rule 15(a). Plaintiff then filed his second amended complaint on September 2, 2025, and his 11 | third on October 28, 2025—without consent from defendant or leave of court. 12 In an effort to ameliorate the docket for the benefit of the parties and the court, the court 13 | will strike plaintiffs second and third amended complaints and provide plaintiff with twenty-one 14 | days to file either a motion to amend or an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 15 | defendant’s motion to dismiss his first amended complaint, ECF No. 13. 16 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 17 1. Plaintiff's second and third amended complaints, ECF Nos. 14 & 18, are STRICKEN. 18 2. Within twenty-one days, plaintiff shall file either a motion seeking leave to amend his 19 | complaint or an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss his 20 | first amended complaint. 21 3. Should plaintiff fail to comply with this order, the court will consider defendant’s 22 | motion submitted. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ May 5, 2026 _———— 26 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE