Ryan v. Hansen

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 DEVIN MICHAEL RYAN,

10 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C19-0753-MJP-MAT

11 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE 12 HANSEN, et al., AMENDED COMPLAINT

13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action, filed a Motion 16 to Amend, accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. (Dkt. 23.) The proposed amended 17 complaint provides new information and documents and omits four individuals – Snohomish 18 County Jail corrections deputies Miller, Downing, Anstett, and Blankenship – as defendants. 19 Defendants did not respond to the motion. The Court, having reviewed the motion and proposed 20 amended complaint, hereby ORDERS as follows: 21 (1) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that the Court “should freely give leave 22 [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a). Leave to amend may be 23 denied where there is undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, undue prejudice to the opposing 1 party, or when the amendment would be futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 2 The Court here finds no basis for denying the unopposed motion to amend. Accordingly, 3 plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Dkt. 23) is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to terminate Miller,

4 Downing, Anstett, and Blankenship as defendants and to lodge the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 23- 5 1) on the docket. 6 (2) The Clerk is further directed to send a copy of this Order to the parties and to the 7 Honorable Marsha J. Pechman. 8 DATED this 14th day of November, 2019. 9 A 10 Mary Alice Theiler 11 United States Magistrate Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23