(PS) Gray III v. Greenwood

Opinion

KENNETH WAYNE GRAY, III, No. 2:24-cv-01401 DC AC Plaintiff, v. ORDER HUNTER GREENWOOD, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is proceeding in pro se, and this action is accordingly referred to the undersigned for all pre-trial matters pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss some of plaintiff’s claims and noticed the motion to be heard on July 23, 2025. ECF Nos. 15, 18. Plaintiff opposed the motion (ECF No. 22) and filed a separate motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 23. Defendants replied, acknowledging the motion for leave to amend. ECF No. 24. As defendants correctly recognize, leave to amend is to be liberally allowed for plaintiffs proceeding in pro se at this early stage of proceedings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The court has reviewed all of the documents, and finds that it is in the interest of justice and judicial economy for the motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 23) to be GRANTED, and the motion to dismiss //// //// (ECF No. 15) to be denied, without prejudice, as MOOT.! Plaintiff is encouraged to review the motion to dismiss and to file an amended complaint that attempts to cure any viable issues raised in that motion. Accordingly, in light of plaintiffs pro se status and the early stage of this case, the motion to amend (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED and plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint by August 4, 2025. The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15) is DENIED without prejudice as MOOT and the hearing date currently set for July 23, 2025 is VACATED. DATED: July 1, 2025 ~ Ahan Clone ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE || | Denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot, without prejudice, is a non-dispositive determination and one of the “quintessential housekeeping matters” within the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction. See Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1165 (9th Cir. 2015).