James Patrick Hayes v. County of San Diego, El Cajon Police Department, Kelly Martinez in her individual capacity, Jeremiah Larson in his individual capacity, Sheriff’s Deputy Does 1-
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se plaintiff's letter expressing a desire to amend his complaint and noting his inability to retain counsel. The court directed the plaintiff to either obtain opposing party consent or file a formal motion for leave to amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
The court directed the plaintiff to follow Rule 15 procedures to amend his complaint, either by obtaining consent or filing a motion for leave.“If Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to follow the procedures outlined in Rule 15 and either (1) obtain consent from the opposing party or (2) file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint with the Court.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that a letter is not a motion for leave to amend and that the plaintiff must follow the procedural requirements of Rule 15. The court provided the correct legal standards for amendment (Foman factors, liberal policy) to guide the plaintiff's future motion. This is a standard procedural direction for a pro se litigant who has expressed an intent to amend but has not yet filed the requisite motion. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly distinguishes a letter from a motion, cites the appropriate rule and case law regarding the liberal standard for amendment, and provides clear instructions to the pro se plaintiff on how to proceed. It does not rule on the merits of the amendment because no motion was filed.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES PATRICK HAYES, an Case No.: 25-CV-1742-GPC-BLM individual, 12 ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S LETTER Plaintiff, 13 TO THE COURT v. 14 [ECF No. 40] COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, EL CAJON 15 POLICE DEPARTMENT, KELLY 16 MARTINEZ in her individual capacity, JEREMIAH LARSON in his individual 17 capacity, SHERIFF’S DEPUTY DOES 1- 18 10, 19 Defendants.
On June 4, 2026, Plaintiff James Hayes—currently proceeding pro se—filed a letter 21 with the Court. ECF No. 40. The letter discusses Plaintiff’s current circumstances and 22 unsuccessful attempts to retain counsel, as well as the factual allegations giving rise to his 23 claims. Id. The letter also discusses various additional topics that seemingly do not relate 24 to the case before the Court. Id. 25 26 27 1 At the end of the letter, Plaintiff notes that “I wish to amend the initial complaint 2 || filed on my behalf to address the injustices suffered while in custody multiple times as well 3 || as continued lies about me threatening my liberty[.]” ECF No. 40, at 6. 4 Per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), Plaintiff can amend his complaint 5 || either (1) with the opposing party’s written consent, or (2) with leave from the Court. Fed. 6 ||R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). If Plaintiff cannot obtain consent from the opposing party, then he 7 ||should file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint with the Court. 8 Leave to amend shall be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 || 15(a)(2). This policy is applied “with extreme liberality.” Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, 10 Jnc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 11 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). 12 When considering whether to grant leave to amend, courts consider factors 13 ||including “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated 14 || failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the 15 opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” 16 || Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). In the Ninth Circuit, □□□ is the consideration of 17 || prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Cap., LLC, 316 18 at 1052. “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman 19 || factors, there exists a presumption under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 15(a) in favor 20 || of granting leave to amend.” /d (emphasis in original). 21 If Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to follow 22 || the procedures outlined in Rule 15 and either (1) obtain consent from the opposing party 23 || or (2) file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint with the Court. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: June 10, 2026 =< 27 United States District Judge 28 25-CV-1742-GPC-BLM