(PC) Thomas v. Escobedo

Opinion

MICHAEL THOMAS, Case No.: 1:24-cv-00510-CDB (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST v. AMENDED COMPLAINT

ESCOBEDO, et al., (Doc. 6)

Defendants.

Plaintiff Michael Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (Doc. 6) and contemporaneously lodged the proposed first amended complaint (Doc. 7). Defendants have not been served or otherwise appeared in this action. Plaintiff’s Motion Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to add claims against the Defendants for violations of Plaintiff’s rights under Title II of the American Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff explains that based on general education he received from a judge during a settlement conference held on November 19, 2024, in Case No. 1:24-cv- 00512 (entitled Thomas c. Akau, et al.) regarding the requirement that each claim alleged against a defendant actually violate the specific law cited, Plaintiff believes that the “named Defendants [herein] may additionally — and may even more properly — be held liable under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.” (Id. at 3). Plaintiff declares that “[s]ave for a few grammatical and contextual changes for clarification, the facts and factual allegations in [the] proposed [first amended complaint] are unchanged from the original complaint.” (Id.). Plaintiff declares that to his knowledge, “Defendants have not yet been served or responded. Thus, [he] believes that Defendants would not be prejudiced by the granting of this request.” (Id.). Legal Standards Concerning Amendment 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 leave when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In exercising its “discretion, a court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities…. Accordingly, Rule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal quotation marks & citations omitted). “But a district court need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). Analysis Plaintiff’s original complaint has not yet been screened by the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Following review of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds granting leave to amend would not prejudice the opposing parties. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 951. The Court also finds that leave is not sought in bad faith nor would it produce an undue delay in this litigation. (Id.). Finally, the Court cannot find, at least at this point, that granting leave to amend would be futile. (Id.). Plaintiff is advised that his motion does not operate to amend or supplement his original Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, any amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. Upon review of Plaintiff's motion, including the proposed first amended complaint lodged simultaneously with this Court (Doc. 7), the undersigned finds good cause to grant the motion. See Local Rule 137(c). The Court shall proceed with screening Plaintiff's operative complaint in due course. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for leave to amend and file a first amended complaint (Doc. 6) is GRANTED; and 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to FILE the first amended complaint lodged on December 10, 2024 (Doc. 7) and adjust the docket accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 13, 2024 | Wr bo UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE