Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Plaintiff David Arthur DePonte’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court orders Plaintiff to file the amended complaint within 21 days and explains that the amended complaint must be complete in itself and will supersede the original complaint.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff should be granted leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to file a first amended complaint before service and screening of the original complaint.
- Whether the proposed amendment was barred by prejudice, bad faith, undue delay, or futility.
Holdings
- Leave to amend should be freely granted when justice so requires, and the court granted Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint because the amendment would not prejudice the opposing parties, was not sought in bad faith, would not cause undue delay, and could not presently be found futile.
- The amended complaint must be complete in itself and may not amend or supplement the original complaint by reference to it.
Key quotations
“The court should freely give leave when justice so requires” (at 1)
“Rather, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint.” (at 2)
Factual background
David Arthur DePonte is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil-rights action against Stohl and other defendants. He sought to amend his complaint after determining the names of the defendants. No defendant had been served or appeared, and the original complaint had not yet been screened.
Procedural history
The action was transferred from the Sacramento Division to the Eastern District of California on June 4, 2025. Plaintiff moved for leave to amend on June 26, 2025. The court granted the motion, ordered Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint within 21 days, and stated that it would screen the operative complaint in due course.