(PC) DePonte v. Stohl

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 DAVID ARTHUR DEPONTE, Case No.: 1:25-cv-00674-JLT-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED 13 v. COMPLAINT

14 STOHL, et al., (Doc. 12)

15 Defendants. 21-DAY DEADLINE

16 17 Plaintiff David Arthur DePonte (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 4, 2025, 19 this action was transferred from the Sacramento Division to this Court. (Doc. 4). Defendants have 20 not been served or otherwise appeared in this action. 21 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, 22 filed on June 26, 2025. (Doc. 12). It appears Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint under Federal 23 Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) because Plaintiff has determined the names of the Defendants to this 24 action “since the filing of [his original] complaint” and “[t]he Court[] should grant leave freely to 25 amend a complaint.” Id. at 1-2. 26 Governing Authority 27 Leave to amend a pleading “is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court,” Pisciotta v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 1326, 1331 (9th Cir. 1996), and “[t]he court should freely give 1 leave when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In exercising its “discretion, a court must 2 be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on 3 the pleadings or technicalities…. Accordingly, Rule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to 4 pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 5 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal quotation marks & citations omitted). “But a district court need not grant 6 leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; 7 (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist 8 W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). 9 Discussion 10 Plaintiff’s original complaint has not yet been screened by the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 11 1915A(a). Following review of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds granting leave to amend would 12 not prejudice the opposing parties. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 951. The Court also 13 finds that leave is not sought in bad faith nor would it produce an undue delay in this litigation. Id. 14 Finally, the Court cannot find, at least at this point, that granting leave to amend would be futile. 15 Id. 16 Plaintiff is advised that his motion does not operate to amend or supplement his original 17 complaint. Rather, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa 18 Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, any amended complaint must be “complete in 19 itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. 20 Upon review of Plaintiff’s motion, the undersigned finds good cause to grant the motion. 21 See Local Rule 137(c). The Court shall proceed with screening Plaintiff’s operative complaint in 22 due course. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 Conclusion and Order 2 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff's Motion for leave to amend and file a first amended complaint (Doc. 12) is 4 GRANTED; 5 2. Plaintiff SHALL FILE any first amended complaint within 21 days from the date of 6 service of this order; and 7 3. The Court shall proceed with screening Plaintiff's operative complaint in due course. 8 | Ir IS SO ORDERED. ° Dated: _ June 27, 2025 | hannD Rr 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28