Porter v. Yuba City Police Dept.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided July 20, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-01554·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Quiana Lei Porter, No. 2:20-cv-01554-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Yuba City Police Dept., et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Quiana Lei Porter acting pro se filed her first complaint in August 2020, Compl., ECF 18 | No. 1, which the assigned magistrate judge dismissed for failure to state a claim, Order, ECF 19 | No.3. Having been granted leave to amend, Porter filed the First Amended Complaint in 20 | February 2021, First Am. Compl., ECF No. 7. Defendants have not answered, and the matter has 21 | not been scheduled. Porter now moves for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Mot., 22 | ECF No. 15. Porter and her new counsel, Substitution of Counsel, ECF No. 6, having reviewed 23 | the relevant evidence, seek to correct “certain facts .. . in the operative complaint to make a clear 24 | record of the events that had actually transpired.” Mot. at 1. They also seek to add the 25 | appropriate names of some defendants. /d. The motion is unopposed and submitted. Min. Order, 26 | ECF No. 17. 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states “[t]he court should freely give leave [to 28 | amend] when justice so requires” and the Ninth Circuit has “stressed Rule 15’s policy of favoring

1 | amendments.” Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989). 2 | However, courts may decline to grant leave to amend only if there is strong evidence of ‘undue 3 | delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies 4 | by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance 5 | of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’” See Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. 6 | Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Foman vy. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 7 | (1962)). Given the early stage of this case and the fact defendants have not yet appeared, the 8 | court does not find there is any undue prejudice or undue delay. Furthermore, there is no 9 | evidence of any other factors that would persuade the court decline to grant leave to amend. 10 Accordingly, the court grants the motion. Plaintiff shall have 21 days to file a Second 11 | Amended Complaint. 12 This order resolves ECF No. 15. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 DATED: July 20, 2021. 15 16 17 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2

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

Porter v. Yuba City Police Dept., (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Porter v. Yuba City Police Dept. (Porter v. Yuba City Police Dept.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co.
866 F.2d 1149 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)