Burnell v. Hasan
Joe Baby Burnell v. Montgomery, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's motion for an extension of time to seek leave to amend his complaint, which was filed after the deadline set in the scheduling order. The court granted the motion in part, extending the deadline to seek leave to amend until November 10, 2025.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Amend Granted in Part“Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to seek leave to amend his operative complaint is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs deadline to seek leave to amend his operative complaint is extended until November 10, 2025.” | agree with court The court applied the general standard that motions to amend are to be granted freely when justice so requires, citing *Eminence Capital* and *Foman*. The plaintiff provided a reason for the delay (denied access to the law library) and the motion was filed shortly after the deadline. Extending the deadline to allow the plaintiff to properly seek leave to amend, rather than dismissing the motion for untimeliness, is consistent with the liberal amendment policy and the pro se status of the plaintiff. The specific extension date (Nov 10) is within the court's discretion. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural posture (answer filed, leave required) and cites the appropriate standards for amendment. It acknowledges the plaintiff's stated reason for the delay and grants an extension, which is a discretionary decision consistent with the liberal amendment policy. The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural order of this nature.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOE BABY BURNELL, Case No.: 24cv0683-LL-MSB CDCR #P-76460, 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART Plaintiff, 13 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR vs. EXTENSION OF TIME TO SEEK 14 LEAVE TO AMEND MONTGOMERY, et al., 15 Defendants. [ECF No. 30] 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 20 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. On March 12, 2025, Defendant filed an 21 answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 21. Plaintiff now files a 22 Motion for Extension of Time to seek leave to amend his operative complaint. ECF No. 23 30. Plaintiff states: “I am denied, delayed, and interfered with access [sic] to the law library 24 on ‘A’ Facility.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff states that he intends to file a Third Amended Complaint 25 and asks for an extension from August 15, 2025 to September 14, 2025. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff 26 signed his Motion on August 13, 2025, the Court received it on September 5, 2025, and it 27 was docketed on September 9, 2025. See Docket. Pursuant to the operative scheduling 28 order in this case, issued on July 2, 2025, any motion to amend pleadings shall be filed on 1 before August 15, 2025. ECF No. 29. 2 Court approval is required to amend a complaint after an answer has been filed. See 3 || Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Whether to grant such a motion is within the court’s sound discretion. 4 ||See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330-31, 91 S.Ct. 795, 5 L.Ed.2d 77 (.... However, motions to amend are to be granted freely when justice so 6 requires); see also Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051-53 (9th 7 || Cir. 2003). Grounds for denial of leave include undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, 8 || repeated failure to cure deficiencies by prior amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing 9 || party by allowing the amendment, and futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 10 || 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). Judicial economy may also be considered. 11 || Sierra Club v. Union Oil Co., 813 F.2d 1480, 1493 (9th Cir.1987). 12 Here, because an answer has already been filed in this case, Plaintiff cannot file a 13 ||Motion to Amend the operative complaint without leave of court or a filing of Non- 14 ||Opposition from Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to 15 || seek leave to amend his operative complaint is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs deadline 16 || to seek leave to amend his operative complaint is extended until November 10, 2025. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: September 30, 2025 NO 19 DE | 20 Honorable Linda Lopez 51 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2