William S. Kachele, Jr. v. Jo El-Maasri, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court granted defendants' motion to strike the plaintiff's second amended complaint for failing to obtain leave to amend under Rule 15(a). The court granted the self-represented plaintiff leave to file a fourth amended complaint by June 30, 2026, warning that failure to do so will result in dismissal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to strike second amended complaint granted“So, the Court strikes the second amended complaint.” | agree with court The plaintiff had already filed one amended complaint as a matter of course. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), a party may amend only once without leave. The plaintiff did not seek or receive leave to file the second amended complaint. Therefore, the second amended complaint was procedurally improper and subject to being stricken. |
Leave to amend granted“Given Kachele’s unrepresented status, the Court grants Kachele leave to amend his complaint one final time by June 30, 2026.” | agree with court Courts have discretion to grant leave to amend to promote the resolution of cases on the merits, particularly for pro se litigants. The court cited the plaintiff's pro se status, his apology for the AI citation error, and the general preference for deciding cases on the merits. Granting one final opportunity to amend is a reasonable exercise of discretion. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies Rule 15(a) to strike the improperly filed second amended complaint. It appropriately exercises discretion to grant leave to amend based on the plaintiff's pro se status and the policy favoring merits-based resolution. The reasoning is concise and supported by relevant authority.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 William S. KACHELE, Jr., Case No.: 25-cv-3458-AGS-MMP 4 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TO STRIKE (ECF 14) AND 5 v. GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND 6 Jo EL-MAASRI, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 Self-represented plaintiff William Kachele, Jr., has filed four complaints in this case 10 so far: the original complaint, an amended complaint, a second amended complaint, and a 11 third amended complaint. (See ECF 1, 3, 6, 10.) The Court sua sponte struck the third 12 amended complaint because Kachele “already amended as a matter of course under Rule 13 15, and no further leave has been requested or granted by the court.” (ECF 11, at 1.) 14 Defendants now request that the second amended complaint also be stricken for the same 15 reason: Kachele had already filed an amended complaint, and he did not request or receive 16 leave of court or agreement of the parties. (See ECF 14.) And defendants are correct. See 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (allowing a party may “amend its pleading once as a matter of course” 18 and then, after that, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written 19 consent or the court’s leave”); see also Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 812 F. App’x 568, 569 20 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking Hayes’s third 21 amended complaint because Hayes did not seek and obtain leave of court to file an 22 amended complaint as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).”). 23 In his opposition, Kachele purports to cite a raft of cases standing for the proposition 24 that this simple application of Rule 15 is inappropriate. (See ECF 20, passim.) He later 25 withdrew those citations, however, admitting he “used a generative artificial-intelligence 26 tool in the preparation of the Opposition and did not independently verify the resulting 27 citations against official reporters before filing.” (ECF 75, at 2.) “Plaintiff therefore does 28 1 ||not oppose the Court’s exercise of its authority to strike the SAC on procedural grounds.” 2 || (id. at 4.) 3 So, the Court strikes the second amended complaint. That leaves only the question 4 ||of what to do next. Despite these missteps and the Court’s misgivings about the potential 5 || merits of this case (see ECF 7), the Court recognizes the difficulties faced by unrepresented 6 || litigants in legal proceedings. The Court also acknowledges and appreciates Kachele’s 7 ||candor, apology, and promise to do better. (See id. at 2 (“That was an error. Plaintiff takes 8 || full responsibility for it. He apologizes to the Court, to opposing counsel, and to the parties 9 || for the burden the unverified citations have imposed. . . . Plaintiff further commits, on the 10 |/record, that all future filings in this action will be prepared under a strict legal-accuracy 11 || protocol that requires independent verification of every authority against official sources 12 ||before submission.”’).) And, of course, “[c]ases should be decided upon their merits 13 || whenever reasonably possible.” NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 616 (9th 14 || Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). 15 In light of the above, the Court orders the following: 16 1. The motion to strike the improperly filed second amended complaint is granted. 17 2. Given Kachele’s unrepresented status, the Court grants Kachele leave to amend his 18 complaint one final time by June 30, 2026. In doing so, Kachele should consider the 19 problems this Court identified in its orders denying his emergency injunctive relief 20 motion and reconsideration request. (See ECF 7 & 13.) The fourth amended 21 complaint must be complete by itself without reference to any previous version of 22 the pleading; defendants not named and any claims not re-alleged in the amended 23 complaint will be considered waived. If plaintiff fails to timely amend, the Court 24 will enter a final order dismissing this civil action. 25 Dated: May 22, 2026 17 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28