(PS) Mandujano v. Lester

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA YANAH MANDUJANO, No. 2:23-cv-02385-DJC-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER KATHERINE LESTER, ET AL., 15 Defendants.

17 On October 19, 2023, Plaintiff, proceeding without counsel, filed his claims against Defendants. On January 18, 2024, Defendants Rob Bonta, Katherine Lester, Sacramento Police Department, and Unnamed Sacramento Police Officer filed motions to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 5, 8.)

20 On January 22, 2024, Defendant City of Davis filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 9.) Defendants Rob Bonta, Katherine Lester, Sacramento Police Department, Unnamed Sacramento Police Officer, and City of Davis (hereinafter referred collectively as “Defendants”) noticed their motions to dismiss for a March 6, 2024, hearing before the undersigned.1 24 On February 27, 2024, the Court issued an order vacating the March 6, 2024, hearing due to Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motions to dismiss. (ECF No. 14.) The Court further informed parties that “[a]fter the expiration of the This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Cal. Local Rule 302(c)(21).

1 deadlines (…), the court will decide the matter on the record and written briefing only.” (Id. at 2.)

2 On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motions. (ECF No. 15.) On the same day, Plaintiff also filed a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 16.) On March 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended opposition to the motions to dismiss (ECF No. 17.) Defendants Katherine Lester, Sacramento Police Department, Unnamed Sacramento Police Officer, and City of Davis filed their replies to Plaintiff’s oppositions. (ECF Nos. 18, 19.)

7 On March 22, 2024, Defendant Rob Bonta filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint and noticed it for a May 1, 2024, hearing before the undersigned. (ECF No. 20.) No further filings have been filed.

10 Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 5, 8, 9) 11 Pursuant to the Court’s February 27, 2024, order, these motions to dismiss have been fully briefed and are taken under submission. No further briefing is required.

13 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 16.)

14 Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs amendments to pleadings. Rule 15 provides that a complaint may be amended once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it or 21 days after service of a responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 15(a)(1) (A), (B). Rule 15 further provides that “[i]n all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The Court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 15(a)(2). As a general matter, courts apply Rule 15(a) with “extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on March 5, 2024, well over 21 days after the service of the motions to dismiss. Moreover, there is no showing that the opposing party provided Plaintiff written consent to file Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint as a motion for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2).

26 The Court will further construe Defendant Rob Bonta’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 20) as an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint and vacate the May 1, 2024, hearing. The Court will decide the motion for leave to file an amended complaint on the | written briefs. No further briefing is required.

2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The May 1, 2024, hearing on Defendant Rob Bonta’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4 20) is VACATED.

5 | Dated: April 25, 2024 a, 1 fh / aie ll 6 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4, mand2385.23 1]