(PC) Ellis v. County of El Dorado et al, No. 2:2022cv00823 - Document 40 (E.D. Cal. 2024)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 5/13/2024 RECOMMENDING plaintiff's 38 motion to amend be denied. Referred to Judge Daniel J. Calabretta. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
(PC) Ellis v. County of El Dorado et al Doc. 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PETER JON ELLIS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No. 2:22-cv-00823-DJC-JDP (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND BE DENIED v. COUNTY OF EL DORADO, et al., ECF No. 38 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 17 Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 18 19 § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend the complaint, ECF No. 38, which defendant 20 opposes, ECF No. 39. For the reasons stated below, I recommend that plaintiff’s motion be 21 denied. 22 Rule 15(a)(2) directs that a court “should freely give leave [to amend a complaint] when 23 justice so requires.” Courts should generally be liberal in allowing a party to amend. Sonoma 24 Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emples. v. Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013). Leave to 25 amend should be denied only where there is strong evidence of “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory 26 motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously 27 allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] 28 futility of amendment . . . . Id. (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)) (alteration in 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 original). Of these elements, the prejudice to the opposing parties is assigned the greatest weight. 2 Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). The entirety of plaintiff’s motion to amend states, “[t]he plaintiff in the above matter is 3 4 requesting to file an amended complaint with the Eastern District Court of California.” ECF 5 No.38. Defendant opposes, arguing that plaintiff’s motion should be denied because he did not 6 file a proposed amended complaint. ECF No. 39. 7 Plaintiff has not filed a proposed amended complaint, so I cannot analyze it properly. 8 Additionally, plaintiff has not articulated any cause for amending his complaint. Therefore, I will 9 recommend that plaintiff’s motion to amend be denied without prejudice. See Fletcher v. 10 Dzurenda, No. 2:18-CV-01077-RFB-VCF, 2020 WL 13748446, at *1 (D. Nev. June 16, 2020) 11 (denying the pro se prisoner’s motion to amend for failure to attach the proposed amended 12 complaint). Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion to amend, ECF No. 13 14 38, be denied. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 17 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 18 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 19 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 20 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 21 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 22 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 23 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: May 13, 2024 27 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.