Harrison
Harrison v. City of Salinas
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ALVIN HARRISON, Case No. 23-cv-00903-JD
10 Plaintiff,
ORDER RE LEAVE TO AMEND AND
11 v. DISCOVERY
12 CITY OF SALINAS, et al., Defendants. 13
14 15 Pro se plaintiff Alvin Harrison asks for leave to file an amended complaint, Dkt. No. 40, 16 which the government defendants oppose, Dkt. No. 43. The proposed complaint is a sprawling 17 attack on a prior arrest and prosecution in state court. See Dkt. No. 40, Exh. 1. The request is 18 suitable for submission without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Amendment is untimely and not 19 supported by “good cause,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), and would be prejudicial and futile. 20 Consequently, leave is denied. The motion to extend the fact discovery cut-off, Dkt. No. 42, 21 which Harrison describes as “a follow up to [his] Motion for Leave to File First Amended 22 Complaint,” id. at 3, is denied as moot. 23 BACKGROUND 24 On September 5, 2021, Harrison had a fight with a security guard at a…