Perez v. Grey

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided July 20, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-00095·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 DANIEL PEREZ, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00095-JLR-DWC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO AMEND 12 v.

13 KATHRYN GREY, et al., 14 Defendant.

15 The District Court referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action to United States 16 Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 17 civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 1, 12. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Second 18 Motion to Amend Complaint. Dkt. 39. 19 BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff, an inmate currently housed at the Monroe Corrections Center (MCC), initiated 21 this action January 2021. Dkt. 1. 22 On February 10, 2021, the Court completed screening of Plaintiff’s claims and directed 23 service of Plaintiff’s Complaint upon the Washington State Attorney General’s Office as well as 24 1 Defendants Kathryn Grey, Douglas McLane, Michael Wright, Laurance Harrod, Cameron 2 Johnson, Hunter Dire. Dkt. 6. Notably, the Complaint also named “John and Jane Does 1-5.” 3 Dkt. 5 at 5. 4 On February 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed his first Motion to Amend, seeking to add Steve

5 Ewing as a Defendant. Dkt. 8. 6 On March 11, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s first Motion to Amend. Dkt.11. 7 On June 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Second Motion to Amend, in which he seeks to again 8 amend his Complaint to replace John and Jane Does 1-5 with the following named Defendants: 9 ⋅ Jeremy Seeley 10 ⋅ Jack Warner 11 ⋅ Lisa Anderson 12 ⋅ Traci Drake 13 ⋅ Melida (sic) Ferrel 14 ⋅ Kari Styles

15 ⋅ Sonia Mills 16 ⋅ Karie Rainer 17 ⋅ Camden Couse 18 ⋅ T. Macleod 19 Dkt. 39. 20 In addition, Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint contains facts not included 21 in previous versions of his complaint, omits his Second Claim, and amends his First Claim to add 22 the Fourteenth Amendment to his alleged First Amendment violation. Dkt. 39. 23 Defendants have not responded to this motion, and the time for doing so has expired. 24 1 STANDARD 2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 15(a)(1): 3 A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 4 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. 5 Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 6 In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s 7 written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires. 8 “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so 9 requires.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 10 2006). “In determining whether leave to amend is appropriate, the district court considers ‘the 11 presence of any of four factors: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and/or 12 futility.’” Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) 13 (quoting Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999)). 14 DISCUSSION 15 Since Plaintiff has already amended his pleading once, he can no longer amend pursuant 16 to Rule 15(a)(1). Defendants have not provided written consent to allow Plaintiff to amend, 17 however this Court finds Plaintiff may amend pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2). 18 Plaintiff’s Motion primarily seeks to amend his Complaint to name previously unnamed 19 John and Jane Doe defendants, and to clarify his claim for relief. There is no evidence of bad 20 faith, no undue delay or prejudice to the opposing party, and no reason to believe at this stage 21 that the proposed amendment is futile. 22 /// 23 /// 24 1 CONCLUSION 2 Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Amend Complaint (Dkt. 39) is GRANTED, and the clerk is 3 directed to file it. 4 Dated this 20th day of July, 2021.

5 A 6 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

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

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

Perez v. Grey (Perez v. Grey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related