Prince Paul Raymond Williams v. Westlake Financial Services, Inc., et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRINCE PAUL RAYMOND WILLIAMS Case No. 1:25-cv-00957-JLT-SAB

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO v. FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WESTLAKE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., (ECF No. 11) et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1, 8.) Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint which was lodged on September 18, 2025. (ECF No. 10.) Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “In the absence of . . . undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the leave sought should . . . be ‘freely given.’” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In other words, “[a]bsent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, the Court finds that granting leave to amend to Plaintiff implicates none of the Foman factors. In his motion to amend, Plaintiff submits that he seeks to refine and clarify his claims that were not fully available at the time of the original filing. (ECF No. 11, pp. 2, 3.) The Court finds no bad faith or futility in his proposed amendment. The proposed supplemental information arises out of the same events at issue in the first amended complaint for this action. As the first amended complaint has not yet been screened or served on Defendants, there will be no undue delay or prejudice to Defendants in allowing Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion shall be granted, the second amended complaint shall be filed. Plaintiff is advised that the second amended complaint will be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in due course. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED; 2. The Clerk of Court shall file Plaintiff's second amended complaint (ECF No. 10), lodged on September 18, 2025. IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. Se Dated: _ October 2, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE United States Magistrate Judge