Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California construed Plaintiff Candace Smith’s lodged amended complaint as a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The court granted leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), directed the Clerk to file the proposed pleading as the third amended complaint, and stated that it would be screened in due course.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the lodged proposed third amended complaint should be construed as a motion for leave to amend.
- Whether leave to file a third amended complaint should be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).
Holdings
- Because Plaintiff was proceeding pro se and the proposed amended complaint was lodged before screening, the court construed it as a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint.
- Leave to amend was granted because no defendant had been served or appeared, so further amendment would not prejudice the opposing party; there was no undue delay or bad faith, and any potential futility could be addressed during screening.
Key quotations
“In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. —the leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.”” (at 2)
“Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining factors, a presumption exists under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” (at 2)
Factual background
Plaintiff proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis. After the court determined that her first amended complaint violated Rule 8 and failed to state a cognizable claim, it granted her leave to amend. Plaintiff lodged a proposed third amended complaint before the court screened her second amended complaint, and no defendant had been served or appeared.
Procedural history
Plaintiff initiated the action, filed a first amended complaint, and received leave to amend after the court found the pleading violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and failed to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff then filed a second amended complaint and lodged a proposed third amended complaint before the second amended complaint was screened. The court construed the lodged complaint as a motion for leave to amend, granted the motion, and directed the clerk to file it as the third amended complaint, which would be screened in due course.