Lorena G. Rios v. City of Chula Vista, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Lorena G. Rios moved for leave to file a first amended complaint after her motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) was denied. The court denied the motion, noting that the plaintiff has the right to amend as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1) once she either pays the filing fee or successfully renews her IFP motion.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for leave to file first amended complaint denied“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for leave to file her first amended complaint.” | agree with court The court's denial is procedurally consistent with the pending status of the IFP motion. Because the plaintiff has not yet paid the filing fee or obtained IFP status, the case is not yet fully docketed for substantive review. However, the court correctly identifies that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), the plaintiff will have the right to amend as a matter of course once the fee is paid or IFP is granted. Denying the specific motion for leave is a standard procedural step to prevent premature amendment before the case is properly filed, though it is somewhat redundant given the 'as a matter of course' right that will attach immediately upon payment/IFP grant. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the prerequisite (payment of fees or IFP status) that must be met before the case proceeds. It correctly cites Rule 15(a)(1) to inform the plaintiff of her future right to amend. The citation to Anderson is relevant to the specific issue of adding a new pro se plaintiff. The denial of the motion for leave is a logical procedural step to hold the amendment in abeyance until the case is properly filed.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 LORENA G. RIOS, Case No.: 3:26-cv-4607-CAB-JLB 14 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 15 v. LEAVE TO AMEND 16 CITY OF CHULA VISTA, et al., [Doc. No. 5] 17 Defendants. 18 19 On September 18, 2026, the Court denied Plaintiff Lorena G. Rios’s motion to 20 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and her motion for leave to electronically file 21 documents. [Doc No. 4.] On September 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file 22 her first amended complaint. [Doc No. 5.] 23 Per the Court’s prior Order, [Doc. No. 4], Plaintiff has until October 16, 2026 to file 24 an amended motion to proceed IFP or pay the required civil filing fee to avoid dismissal. 25 If Plaintiff’s amended motion to proceed IFP is granted or she pays the civil filing fee, 26 Plaintiff has the right to amend her complaint as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 15(a)(1). The Court also notes that if Plaintiff’s adult daughter wishes to join as a pro se 28 plaintiff, then her daughter must also qualify for IFP status and sign any amended 1 ||complaint. See Anderson v. California, No. 10-cv-2216, 2010 WL 4316996, at *2 (S.D. 2 Oct. 27, 2010). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for leave to file 3 || her first amended complaint. 4 Itis SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: September 25, 2026 © g 6 5 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28