Hill v. City of American Canyon

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 Andison Hill and Veronica Hill, No. 2:23-cv-00349-KJM-KJN 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. City of American Canyon, et al., 1S Defendants.

17 This is a civil rights action about a police search of Andison and Veronica Hill’s home.

18 | See Compl. 8-16, ECF No. 1. They are the plaintiffs in this action. They move for leave to | amend the scheduling order to permit an amendment to their complaint. ECF No. 16. Defendant | City of American Canyon does not oppose the motion. ECF No. 17.

21 The time for amendments to the pleadings in this action has passed. See Mins., ECF | No. 12; Standing Scheduling Order at 1-2, ECF No. 13. The court thus considers first whether | the plaintiffs have shown “good cause” to modify this court’s scheduling orders under Rule 16.

24 | See Standing Scheduling Order at 1-2. That requirement focuses primarily on the Hills’ diligence | and their reasons for not acting sooner. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations Inc., 975 F.2d 604, | 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

27 The Hills have shown good cause and diligence. Soon after the court issued a scheduling | order under Rule 16, they received copies of video recorded by officers’ body cameras. Goff | Decl. 93, ECF No. 16-2. They received initial disclosures a few weeks later. /d. 9 4. Their | attorney reviewed the video and initial disclosures and ascertained “the exact roles that each | officer played” and identified each officer. /d. 5. The proposed amendment to the Hills’ | complaint would name the individual officers and clarify their roles in the alleged civil rights | violations. See generally Proposed Am. Compl., ECF No. 16-1.

6 When a motion to amend is supported by good cause, as in this case, the court next | considers whether the proposed amendment should be permitted under Rule 15. Under that Rule, | district courts “freely give leave” to amend the pleadings “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. | P. 15(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit has “stressed Rule 15’s policy of favoring amendments.” Ascon | Props, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989). An amendment will serve the | interests of justice in this case; it is unlikely to lead to undue delays or prejudice, and the court | perceives no bad faith or risk that an amendment would be an exercise in futility. See id. 13 The motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 16) is granted. An amended complaint must be | filed within seven days. The motion hearing previously set for September 1, 2023 is vacated.

15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 DATED: August 22, 2023. | / CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE