Perez v. Grey

W.D. Washington

Perez v. Grey

DecidedMarch 11, 2021

Docket2:21-cv-00095

StatusUnknown

This text of Perez v. Grey (Perez v. Grey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Perez v. Grey, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 6 7 DANIEL JAY PEREZ, CASE NO. 2:21-CV-0095-JLR-DWC

8 ORDER Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 GREY et. al, 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights Complaint 14 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s First Proposed 15 Amended Complaint, which the Court construes as a Motion to Amend (“Motion”). Dkt. 8. 16 On January 26, 2021, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit by filing a Motion to Proceed In 17 Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) and the Complaint. See Dkt. 1, 1-1. The Court granted the Motion to 18 Proceed IFP on February 10, 2021. Dkt. 4. The same day, the Court directed service of the 19 Complaint. Dkt. 5. On February 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Motion. Dkt. 8. 20

23 1 Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 2 A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or 3 (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service 4 of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.

5 Here, Plaintiff filed the Motion and First Proposed Amended Complaint within 21 6 days of service and prior to the filing of a responsive pleading. See Docket. This is Plaintiff’s 7 first Amended Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff has the right to file the Amended Complaint as a 8 matter of course. “When the plaintiff has the right to file an amended complaint as a matter of 9 course, [ ] the plain language of Rule 15(a) shows that the court lacks the discretion to reject the 10 amended complaint based on its alleged futility.” Thomas v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2007 WL 11 2140917, * 2 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2007) (quoting Williams v. Board of Regents of University 12 System of Georgia, 477 F.3d 1282, 1292 n. 6 (11th Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion 13 is granted, and the Court accepts the First Amended Complaint. 14 Dated this 11th day of March, 2021. 15 16 A David W. Christel 17 United States Magistrate Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 6 7 DANIEL JAY PEREZ, CASE NO. 2:21-CV-0095-JLR-DWC

8 ORDER Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 GREY et. al, 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights Complaint 14 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s First Proposed 15 Amended Complaint, which the Court construes as a Motion to Amend (“Motion”). Dkt. 8. 16 On January 26, 2021, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit by filing a Motion to Proceed In 17 Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) and the Complaint. See Dkt. 1, 1-1. The Court granted the Motion to 18 Proceed IFP on February 10, 2021. Dkt. 4. The same day, the Court directed service of the 19 Complaint. Dkt. 5. On February 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Motion. Dkt. 8. 20

23 1 Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 2 A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or 3 (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service 4 of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.

5 Here, Plaintiff filed the Motion and First Proposed Amended Complaint within 21 6 days of service and prior to the filing of a responsive pleading. See Docket. This is Plaintiff’s 7 first Amended Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff has the right to file the Amended Complaint as a 8 matter of course. “When the plaintiff has the right to file an amended complaint as a matter of 9 course, [ ] the plain language of Rule 15(a) shows that the court lacks the discretion to reject the 10 amended complaint based on its alleged futility.” Thomas v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2007 WL 11 2140917, * 2 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2007) (quoting Williams v. Board of Regents of University 12 System of Georgia, 477 F.3d 1282, 1292 n. 6 (11th Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion 13 is granted, and the Court accepts the First Amended Complaint. 14 Dated this 11th day of March, 2021. 15 16 A David W. Christel 17 United States Magistrate Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Perez v. Grey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-grey-wawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack