(PC) Penn v. Warden of Kern Valley State Prison

E.D. California

(PC) Penn v. Warden of Kern Valley State Prison

DecidedFebruary 7, 2022

Docket1:18-cv-01482

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Penn v. Warden of Kern Valley State Prison ((PC) Penn v. Warden of Kern Valley State Prison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Penn v. Warden of Kern Valley State Prison, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARLIN PENN, Case No. 1:18-cv-1482-AWI-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO IDENTIFY WARDEN OF KERN 13 v. VALLEY STATE PRISON AS CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER 14 A. LUCUS; ET. AL., (Doc. No. 34) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to identify the Defendant Warden of Kern 18 Valley State Prison, filed January 18, 2022. (Doc. No. 34). Plaintiff seeks to identify the 19 defendant named as the “Warden of Kern Valley State Prison” as Christian Pfeiffer. (Id. at 1). A 20 review of Defendant’s answer indicates, Defendant identified the Warden by Christian Pfeiffer. 21 (Doc. No. 30 at 2, ¶ 4). The Court liberally construes the motion as brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 15. See Miles v. Dep’t of Army, 991 F.2d 777, 781-82 (9th Cir. 1989) (discussing amendment of 23 the complaint to name proper defendant). 24 Under Rule 15(a)(1), a plaintiff may amend his complaint once, as of right, at any time 25 prior to the filing of a responsive pleading. Here, a responsive pleading, an answer, was filed, so 26 Rule 15(a)(2) applies. Under Rule 15(a)(2), a party may amend its pleading only with opposing 27 party’s written consent or the court’s leave. (Id.). The court should freely give leave when justice 28 so requires. (Id.). 1 Defendant has not filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion and the time to do so has 2 || expired. The Court deems Plaintiff's motion unopposed under Local Rule 230(1). Further, the 3 | Court finds justice requires permitting the amendment of the complaint to the proper name for the 4 | Defendant currently identified as the Warden of Kern Valley. A docket review confirms that 5 | attorney Anthony Corso has already entered an appearance on behalf of the Defendant Warden of 6 | Kern Valley. (See docket). Thus, Defendant Warden Pfeiffer has apparently received notice of 7 | the lawsuit against him and already has counsel who entered an appearance. 8 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 9 1. Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 34) is GRANTED. 10 2. The Clerk of Court shall edit the docket to reflect the proper name Christian Pfeiffer as 11 || Defendant “Warden of Kern Valley.” 12 'S | Dated: _ February 6, 2022 Mile. Wh fareh Zaskth 14 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARLIN PENN, Case No. 1:18-cv-1482-AWI-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO IDENTIFY WARDEN OF KERN 13 v. VALLEY STATE PRISON AS CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER 14 A. LUCUS; ET. AL., (Doc. No. 34) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to identify the Defendant Warden of Kern 18 Valley State Prison, filed January 18, 2022. (Doc. No. 34). Plaintiff seeks to identify the 19 defendant named as the “Warden of Kern Valley State Prison” as Christian Pfeiffer. (Id. at 1). A 20 review of Defendant’s answer indicates, Defendant identified the Warden by Christian Pfeiffer. 21 (Doc. No. 30 at 2, ¶ 4). The Court liberally construes the motion as brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 15. See Miles v. Dep’t of Army, 991 F.2d 777, 781-82 (9th Cir. 1989) (discussing amendment of 23 the complaint to name proper defendant). 24 Under Rule 15(a)(1), a plaintiff may amend his complaint once, as of right, at any time 25 prior to the filing of a responsive pleading. Here, a responsive pleading, an answer, was filed, so 26 Rule 15(a)(2) applies. Under Rule 15(a)(2), a party may amend its pleading only with opposing 27 party’s written consent or the court’s leave. (Id.). The court should freely give leave when justice 28 so requires. (Id.). 1 Defendant has not filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion and the time to do so has 2 || expired. The Court deems Plaintiff's motion unopposed under Local Rule 230(1). Further, the 3 | Court finds justice requires permitting the amendment of the complaint to the proper name for the 4 | Defendant currently identified as the Warden of Kern Valley. A docket review confirms that 5 | attorney Anthony Corso has already entered an appearance on behalf of the Defendant Warden of 6 | Kern Valley. (See docket). Thus, Defendant Warden Pfeiffer has apparently received notice of 7 | the lawsuit against him and already has counsel who entered an appearance. 8 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 9 1. Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 34) is GRANTED. 10 2. The Clerk of Court shall edit the docket to reflect the proper name Christian Pfeiffer as 11 || Defendant “Warden of Kern Valley.” 12 'S | Dated: _ February 6, 2022 Mile. Wh fareh Zaskth 14 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Penn v. Warden of Kern Valley State Prison, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-penn-v-warden-of-kern-valley-state-prison-caed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack