Loadholt

(PC) Patton v. Loadholt

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 25, 20202:19-cv-00451California4,320 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY L. PATTON, No. 2: 19-cv-0451 KJM KJN P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS F.N.P. LOADHOLT, et al., Defendants. 16 Introduction Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. (ECF No. 77.) For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion be granted in part and denied in part. Legal Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 requires that a plaintiff obtain either consent of the defendant or leave of court to amend its complaint once the defendant has answered, but “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); see, e.g., Chodos v. W. Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (leave to amend granted with “extreme liberality”). //// In determining whether…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.