1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEVON A. PHILLIPS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00875-KES-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND 13 v. COMPLAINT

14 KERN COUNTY SHERIFF’S (Docs. 11, 12) DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 ORDER ON STIPULATION TO EXTEND Defendants. TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING 16 (Doc. 14) 17 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO LODGE 18 VIDEO EVIDENCE

19 (Doc. 13)

20 ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR SUBPOENA 21 (Doc. 4) 22 Clerk of the Court to Adjust the Docket to 23 Reflect Operative First Amended Complaint

24 25 On July 17, 2025, Plaintiff Devon A. Phillips initiated this action with the filing of a 26 complaint against the Kern County’s Sheriff’s Office, Deputy Fisher, and Deputy J. Perez. (Doc. 27 1). On July 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for subpoena. (Doc. 4). On August 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint (Doc. 11) and lodged a proposed first amended 1 complaint with the Court (Doc. 12). That same day, Plaintiff filed a motion to lodge video evidence 2 with the Court. (Doc. 13). On August 8, 2025, the parties filed a jointly executed stipulated request 3 to extend the deadline for Defendant Kern County Sheriff’s Office to file a responsive pleading in 4 which Defendants indicate they do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint. (Doc. 5 14). 6 The Court will address each filing in turn. 7 Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint 8 In the motion for leave to amend the complaint, Plaintiff asserts that he met and conferred 9 by telephone with counsel for Defendants on August 5, 2025, concerning his claims. Plaintiff states 10 that “defense counsel brought up some deficiencies that the defendants would like the plaintiff to 11 correct” and Plaintiff, thus, seeks leave to file his first amended complaint. (Doc. 11 at 2). It 12 appears Defendants do not oppose amendment. See (Doc. 14). 13 Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a plaintiff to amend the complaint 14 once as a matter of course no later than 21 days after service of the complaint or 21 days after 15 service of a responsive pleading or motion to dismiss, whichever is earlier. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 15(a)(1). After such time has passed or plaintiff has once amended their complaint, amendment 17 may only be by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 15(a)(2). “Rule 15(a) is very liberal” and a court should freely give leave to amend when “justice 19 so requires.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2006); 20 see Chodos v. W. Publ. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2002) (“it is generally our policy to permit 21 amendment with ‘extreme liberality’”) (quoting Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893

, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990)). 23 Here, the docket reflects waivers of service of process for individual Defendants executed 24 and filed on July 25, 2025, signed by counsel for Defendants Fisher and Perez. (Docs. 7, 8). 25 Additionally, Plaintiff filed summonses returned executed that same day. (Docs. 9, 10). Further, 26 counsel for Defendants represents that Defendant Kern County Sheriff’s Office was served on July 27 18, 2025. (Doc. 14 at 1). As Plaintiff filed the motion to amend and lodged his proposed first 1 complaint once as a matter of course. Plaintiff has not previously amended his complaint. Thus, 2 the Court will adopt the lodged first amended complaint (Doc. 12) as the operative complaint. 3 Stipulation to Extend Time for Defendant to File Responsive Pleading 4 On August 8, 2025, the parties filed a jointly executed stipulated request to extend the time 5 for Defendant Kern County Sheriff’s Office to file a responsive pleading to August 22, 2025. (Doc. 6 14). The parties represent that they agreed Plaintiff would file an amended complaint and, thus, 7 Plaintiff agreed to extend the responsive pleading deadline for Defendant Kern County Sheriff’s 8 Office to August 22, 2025. Id. at 2. 9 In light of the Plaintiff amending his complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(A), Defendant 10 Kern County Sheriff’s Office shall file its responsive pleading no later than August 25, 2025. See 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3). Defendants Fisher and Perez shall file their responsive pleadings no later 12 than September 23, 2025. (Doc. 14 at 2; see Docs. 7, 8). 13 Motion to Lodge Video Evidence 14 On August 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to “submit thumb drives and other 15 supporting documents” to the Court that “will prove the complaint and claim … as accurate and 16 factual.” (Doc. 13 at 2). Plaintiff provides no other grounds for the request to lodge evidence with 17 the Court. 18 Plaintiff is admonished that, as the Court advised in its Informational Order (Doc. 3-3), the 19 Court cannot serve “as a repository for the parties’ evidence.” It follows that Plaintiff “may not 20 file evidence with the Court until the course of litigation brings the evidence into question (for 21 example, on a motion for summary judgment, at trial, or when requested by the Court).” Plaintiff 22 was warned that any “[e]vidence improperly submitted to the Court will be stricken and returned 23 to the party.” (Doc. 3-3 at 2) (emphasis omitted). 24 Plaintiff identifies no events that brings such evidence into question and the Court cannot 25 locate any. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to lodge evidence (Doc. 13) will be denied. 26 Motion for Subpoena 27 On July 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a subpoena for service on individual 1 | that the summons to appear is not a subpoena she will not accept the summons without the 2 | subpoena.” Plaintiff requests a subpoena to require Defendants appear at the October 14, 2025, 3 | scheduling conference, without being required to pay any subpoena appearance fee. (Doc. 4 at 2). 4 As the individual Defendants have filed waivers of service and have appeared in this action 5 | through counsel (Docs. 7, 8), they are required to appear at the mandatory scheduling conference. 6 | See (Doc. 3). As such, no subpoena is required. Thus, Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 4) is DENIED as 7 | moot. 8 Conclusion and Order 9 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to amend the complaint (Doc. 11) is GRANTED and 11 the proposed first amended complaint, lodged with the Court on August 7, 2025 (Doc. 12), 12 is deemed the operative complaint. 13 2. Defendant Kern County Sheriff's Office SHALL FILE its responsive pleading to the first 14 amended complaint no later than August 25, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3). 15 3. Defendants Fisher and Perez SHALL FILE their responsive pleadings to the first amended 16 complaint no later than September 23, 2025. See id. 17 4. Plaintiff's motion to lodge evidence (Doc. 13) is DENIED. 18 5. Plaintiff's motion for subpoena (Doc. 4) is DENIED as moot. 19 6. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to adjust the docket to reflect Plaintiff's lodged 20 complaint (Doc. 12) as the operative first amended complaint. 21 | ITIS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ August 11, 2025 | Word bo 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28