Roy Warden v. Mike Rankin

MEMORANDUM

Roy Warden appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims in connection with his attempts to speak in a public park. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for leave to amend, Amerisource-Bergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 949 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Warden’s motions for leave to amend his First Amendment claim alleging that he had been denied entry into a park and threatened with arrest because the record demonstrates that Warden had unduly delayed the litigation and acted in bad faith, and Warden’s proposed amendments would prejudice defendants. See id. at 951 (setting forth factors that a district court may consider in deciding whether to grant motion for leave to amend); see also De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874 , 878 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Where the party seeking amendment knows or should know of the facts upon which the proposed amendment is based but fails to include them in the original complaint, the motion to amend may be denied.”…