Sharrod Moten v. Cisneros, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 29, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00022
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SHARROD MOTEN, Case No. 1:24-cv-00022-JLT-BAM (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED 11 v. COMPLAINT 12 CISNEROS, et al., (ECF No. 26) 13 Defendants. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT LODGED 14 ON DECEMBER 22, 2025 AS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 15 (ECF No. 27) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Sharrod Moten (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 19 rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on January 5, 2024. (ECF No. 20 1.) On May 22, 2024, the then-assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint and 21 granted him leave to amend. (ECF No. 14.) On June 18, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff final 22 leave to file an amended complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, no 23 longer than 25 pages in length, including exhibits. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff filed a first amended 24 complaint on June 30, 2025, which totaled 32 pages. (ECF No. 24.) The matter was reassigned 25 to the undersigned on October 6, 2025. (ECF No. 25.) 26 On December 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting leave to file a second 27 amended complaint. (ECF No. 26.) By the motion, Plaintiff seeks to (1) correct and supplement 28 the factual allegations; (2) clarify, add to, and expand his claims; (3) include a request for specific 1 relief; and (4) submit supporting exhibits. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff asserts that no undue delay or 2 prejudice will result because this action is in its early stages, and the proposed amendments are 3 directly related to claims already asserted. (Id.) Plaintiff has lodged his proposed second 4 amended complaint. (ECF No. 27.) 5 Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s 6 pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. 7 Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse 8 party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “Rule 15(a) 9 is very liberal and leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires.” 10 AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and 11 quotation omitted). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) 12 prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; 13 or (4) is futile.” Id. 14 In considering the relevant factors, the Court finds no evidence of prejudice, bad faith, 15 undue delay in litigation, or futility. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint has not yet been 16 screened, and no defendants have been served or have appeared in this action. Plaintiff’s motion 17 to amend shall be granted. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s second amended complaint in due 18 course. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 20 1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, (ECF No. 26), is 21 GRANTED; 22 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file the amended complaint lodged on December 23 22, 2025, (ECF No. 27), as the second amended complaint; and 24 3. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint will be screened in due course. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26

27 Dated: December 29, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28