(PC) Stanford v. Anaya

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TERRELL CORDARRYL STANFORD, No. 2:19-CV-0497-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER Y. ANAYA, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion, ECF No. 37, for leave to file an amended answer and a motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiff has filed an opposition, ECF No. 38, and Defendants have filed a reply, ECF No. 39.

21 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days of serving the pleading or, if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, within 21 days after service of the responsive pleading, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), or within 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f) of the rules, whichever time is earlier, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). In all other situations, a party’s pleadings may only be amended upon leave of court or stipulation of all the parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Where leave of court to amend is required and sought, the court considers the following factors: (1) whether there is a reasonable relationship between the original and amended pleadings; (2) whether the grant of leave to amend is in the interest of judicial economy and will promote the speedy resolution of the entire controversy; (3) whether there was a delay in seeking leave to amend; (4) whether the grant of leave to amend would delay a trial on the merits of the original claim; and (5) whether the opposing party will be prejudiced by amendment. See Jackson v. Bank of Hawai’i, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). Leave to amend should be denied where the proposed amendment is frivolous. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).

8 Here leave of Court is required because the time to amend Defendants’ answer as of right has expired and Plaintiff does not consent to amendment. In their motion for leave to amend, Defendants’ counsel, who was newly assigned to the case in preparation for a settlement conference on November 30, 2021, states that Defendants have discovered that one of two claims upon which this case proceeds is likely barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (concluding that § 1983 claim not cognizable because allegations were akin to malicious prosecution action which includes as an element a finding that the criminal proceeding was concluded in plaintiff’s favor). Defendants seek leave to amend their original answer to allege this new defense. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ motion should be denied because the issue should have been raised sooner and the case is now ready to be set for trial.

18 Having considered the parties’ arguments and the factors outlined above, the Court finds good cause to permit Defendants to file an amended answer. Though, as Plaintiff notes, the case is ready to be set for trial, the Heck issue can and should be decided on summary judgment, potentially simplifying the case for trial. Further, there is little likelihood that the matter could be set for trial before a District Judge in the foreseeable future. Thus a short delay in trial readiness to allow for a motion for partial summary judgment on the Heck issue would not result in prejudice to any party.

25 / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Defendants’ motion, ECF No. 37, for leave to file an amended answer is | granted; 4 2. Defendants shall file an amended answer within 15 days of the date of this | order; 6 3. Defendants may file a motion for summary judgment on the Heck issue | within 45 days of the date of this order; 8 4. Plaintiff's opposition is due within 30 days of the date of service of | Defendants’ motion for summary judgment; and 10 5. Defendants’ reply is due within 15 days of the date of service of Plaintiffs || opposition.

13 | Dated: February 11, 2022 Ssvcqo_ DENNIS M. COTA 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE