Stohl
(PC) DePonte v. Stohl
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
Order 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID ARTHUR DEPONTE, Case No. 1:24-cv-00695-HBK Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO AMEND
v. (Doc. No. 40) STOHL, STERN, J. SAUCEDO, K.
SUDANO, M. DOBE, GUNSAGA,
15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s pleading titled “Motion to File Second Amended Complaint. Notice to Stand on First Amended Complaint,” filed on July 31, 2024. (Doc. No. 40). Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s Motion disagrees with the Court’s July 17, 2024 Screening Order finding his First Amended Complaint failed to state a claim and asks the Court to permit him to file a Second Amended Complaint. (See generally id.). The Court thus construes Plaintiff’s filing as a Motion to Amend. Plaintiff accompanied his Motion with a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 41).
1 A motion’s “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’ns,…