(PC) Thomas v. Escobedo

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 13, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00510
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL THOMAS, Case No.: 1:24-cv-00510-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST 13 v. AMENDED COMPLAINT

14 ESCOBEDO, et al., (Doc. 6)

15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff Michael Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 On December 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint 21 (Doc. 6) and contemporaneously lodged the proposed first amended complaint (Doc. 7). 22 Defendants have not been served or otherwise appeared in this action. 23 II. DISCUSSION 24 Plaintiff’s Motion 25 Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to add claims against the Defendants for violations 26 of Plaintiff’s rights under Title II of the American Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of 27 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- 1 00512 (entitled Thomas c. Akau, et al.) regarding the requirement that each claim alleged against 2 a defendant actually violate the specific law cited, Plaintiff believes that the “named Defendants 3 [herein] may additionally — and may even more properly — be held liable under the ADA and 4 Rehabilitation Act.” (Id. at 3). Plaintiff declares that “[s]ave for a few grammatical and 5 contextual changes for clarification, the facts and factual allegations in [the] proposed [first 6 amended complaint] are unchanged from the original complaint.” (Id.). Plaintiff declares that to 7 his knowledge, “Defendants have not yet been served or responded. Thus, [he] believes that 8 Defendants would not be prejudiced by the granting of this request.” (Id.). 9 Legal Standards Concerning Amendment 10 Leave to amend a pleading “is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court,” 11 Pisciotta v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 1326, 1331 (9th Cir. 1996), and “[t]he court should 12 freely give leave when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In exercising its “discretion, 13 a court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits, 14 rather than on the pleadings or technicalities…. Accordingly, Rule 15’s policy of favoring 15 amendments to pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality.” United States v. Webb, 655 16 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal quotation marks & citations omitted). “But a district court 17 need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is 18 sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.” AmerisourceBergen 19 Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). 20 Analysis 21 Plaintiff’s original complaint has not yet been screened by the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 22 1915A(a). Following review of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds granting leave to amend would 23 not prejudice the opposing parties. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 951. The Court also 24 finds that leave is not sought in bad faith nor would it produce an undue delay in this litigation. 25 (Id.). Finally, the Court cannot find, at least at this point, that granting leave to amend would be 26 futile. (Id.). 27 Plaintiff is advised that his motion does not operate to amend or supplement his original 1 | Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, any amended complaint must be “complete in 2 | itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. 3 Upon review of Plaintiff's motion, including the proposed first amended complaint lodged 4 | simultaneously with this Court (Doc. 7), the undersigned finds good cause to grant the motion. 5 | See Local Rule 137(c). The Court shall proceed with screening Plaintiff's operative complaint in 6 | due course. 7 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 8 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiff's Motion for leave to amend and file a first amended complaint (Doc. 6) is 10 GRANTED; and 11 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to FILE the first amended complaint lodged on 12 December 10, 2024 (Doc. 7) and adjust the docket accordingly. 13 | IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 13, 2024 | Wr bo 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28