Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Plaintiff Cornell E. Davis’s motion for leave to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court directs the Clerk to file the amended complaint lodged on October 20, 2025, as the second amended complaint and states that it will screen the pleading in due course.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff should be granted leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) to file the amended complaint lodged on October 20, 2025.
- Whether the lodged amended complaint should be filed as Plaintiff's second amended complaint.
Holdings
- Leave to amend should be granted because the record showed no prejudice, bad faith, undue delay, or futility, and the amendment was timely to the extent it was filed in response to the re-service of the screening order.
- The Clerk was directed to file the amended complaint lodged on October 20, 2025 as Plaintiff's second amended complaint.
Key quotations
“Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires.” (1)
Factual background
Cornell E. Davis is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil-rights action. After the court screened his complaint and granted leave to amend, Plaintiff updated his address, filed a first amended complaint, and lodged another amended complaint. No defendants had been served or appeared, and the court found no evidence of prejudice, bad faith, undue delay, or futility.
Procedural history
The court screened Plaintiff's original complaint on September 26, 2025, and granted leave to file a first amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on October 9, 2025, and later lodged another amended complaint on October 20, 2025, apparently after the screening order was re-served following his address update. No defendant had been served or appeared, and the court granted leave to amend and directed the Clerk to file the lodged pleading as a second amended complaint.