Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Shawn Smallwood’s unopposed motion for leave to file a first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The proposed amendment concerns challenges under NEPA, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Endangered Species Act to 2025 agency decisions involving a VA outpatient clinic project. The court finds that the relevant factors, including lack of bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, prior amendments, and futility, favor amendment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether leave should be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to file the proposed first amended complaint.
- Whether the proposed amendment was barred by bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, prior amendment, or futility.
Holdings
- Leave to amend should be freely granted because all relevant Rule 15 factors weighed in favor of amendment and the motion was unopposed.
- The proposed amendment was not shown to be futile at the leave-to-amend stage.
Key quotations
“Rule 15(a) is very liberal”
“Because the Nunes factors all weigh in favor of amendment, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to amend the complaint.”
Factual background
Smallwood's original complaint challenged the VA's environmental review of a planned community-based outpatient clinic in Bakersfield, California. After the original complaint was filed, the VA issued a finding of no significant impact in April 2025 and the Fish and Wildlife Service issued a biological opinion in March 2025. Smallwood proposed amending the complaint to challenge those later agency actions, add current and Fish and Wildlife Service officials in their official capacities, and remove or consolidate claims. The defendants did not oppose amendment.
Procedural history
Smallwood initiated the action on January 31, 2024, challenging aspects of the Department of Veterans Affairs' environmental review of a community-based outpatient clinic project. In August 2025, he sought to amend the complaint to remove two existing claims, consolidate claims concerning the VA's NEPA review, add claims challenging a Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion under the Endangered Species Act and Administrative Procedure Act, and substitute or add federal officials in their official capacities. The court granted the unopposed motion and ordered filing of the amended complaint, service on newly added defendants, and responsive pleadings under Rule 15(a)(3).