1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENJAMIN MILLER, No. 2:25-CV-03032-DJC-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the 19 Court are Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, ECF No. 16, second 20 amended complaint, ECF No. 17, and request for remote appearance and motion to e-file, ECF 21 No. 18. 22 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff initiated this action in state court on September 9, 2025. See ECF No. 1. 25 This matter was removed from state court by Defendants on October 20, 2025. See id. On 26 October 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, asserting such filing was as a right 27 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a)(1)(A). See ECF No. 9. On October 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed 28 another first amended complaint, again asserting such filing was as a right pursuant to Fed. R. 1 Civ. P. 15 (a)(1)(A). See ECF No. 14. On October 29, 2025, this Court ordered Plaintiff to notify 2 the Court which first amended complaint Plaintiff intended to proceed on. 3 On November 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended 4 complaint, ECF No. 16, second amended complaint, ECF No. 17, and request for remote 5 appearance and motion to e-file, ECF No. 18. Plaintiff contends that his second amended 6 complaint is “submitted in good faith, . . . no new defendants are added, and no undue prejudice 7 will result to Defendants.” ECF No. 16, pg. 2. 8 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 Finding no “apparent or declared reason” to not grant leave to amend, such as 11 undue delay or bad faith, the undersigned will grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second 12 amended complaint, deem the second amended complaint as the operative complaint, and direct 13 Defendants to respond to the second amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. 14 Foman v. Davis,

(1962). As to Plaintiff’s request for remote appearance and 15 access to electronic filing, ECF No. 18, the undersigned will deny for the reasons described 16 herein, without prejudice. 17 A. Motion for Leave to file Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 16 18 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her 19 pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days of serving the pleading or, if the pleading is 20 one to which a responsive pleading is required, within 21 days after service of the responsive 21 pleading, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), or within 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 22 12(b), (e), or (f) of the rules, whichever time is earlier, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). In all 23 other situations, a party’s pleadings may only be amended upon leave of court or stipulation of all 24 the parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Under this Court's local rules, a motion for leave to 25 amend must be accompanied by a proposed amended complaint filed as an exhibit to the motion. 26 See E. Dist. Cal. Local Rule 137(c). 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Where leave of court to amend is required and properly sought, the Court 2 considers the following factors: (1) whether there is a reasonable relationship between the original 3 and amended pleadings; (2) whether the grant of leave to amend is in the interest of judicial 4 economy and will promote the speedy resolution of the entire controversy; (3) whether there was 5 a delay in seeking leave to amend; (4) whether the grant of leave to amend would delay a trial on 6 the merits of the original claim; and (5) whether the opposing party will be prejudiced by 7 amendment. See Jackson v. Bank of Hawai’i,

, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). Leave to 8 amend should be freely given “in the absence of any apparent or declared reason -- such as undue 9 delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies 10 by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance 11 of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis,

(1962). 12 However, leave to amend should be denied where the proposed amendment is frivolous. See 13 DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton,

(9th Cir. 1987). 14 Where a party files an amended complaint without the right to do so, it is properly 15 stricken by the Court. See, e.g., Hardin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

, 1181 16 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (striking fourth amended complaint: “If an amended pleading cannot be made as 17 of right and is filed without leave of court or consent of the opposing party, the amended pleading 18 is a nullity and without legal effect.”); Sexton v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00898- 19 TLN-AC,

(E.D. Cal. March 31, 2022) (striking amended complaint); Guthrie v. 20 Hurwitz, Case No. 1:18-cv-00282-AWI-BAM,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 21 2018) (striking amended complaint). 22 Plaintiff has now filed three amended complaints and filed a motion for leave to 23 amend on the same day as filing the second amended complaint, instead of attaching it to the 24 motion per Local Rule 137 (c). However, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and the second amended 25 complaint was filed within 21-days of removal, indicating to the Court no undue delay or bad 26 faith. Thus, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint 27 and accept Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, ECF No. 17, as the operative complaint. 28 Plaintiff is informed that no further amendments to the complaint are permitted unless this Court 1 grants such leave. Defendants will be directed to respond to the second amended complaint within 2 30 days of this order. 3 B. Motion for Remote Appearance and Electronic Filing, ECF No. 18 4 In Plaintiff’s motion for remote appearance and access to electronic filing, Plaintiff 5 requests to appear for hearings via Zoom. See ECF No. 18, pgs. 1-2. Plaintiff contends that 6 because he lives in Dunsmuir, California, travel to the Sacramento Courthouse “would cause 7 undue hardship and delay.” Id. at 1. This Court is amenable to remote appearance, when 8 necessary. Indeed, certain hearings are scheduled to be held on Zoom, rather than in person. 9 However, this Court is not inclined to grant permission for remote appearances for all 10 proceedings. Further, the undersigned notes that as the assigned Magistrate Judge, who is based in 11 a Courtroom in Redding, California, any in-person proceedings in front of the undersigned would 12 only require Plaintiff to travel from Dunsmuir to Redding. Thus, the request for remote 13 appearance will be denied, without prejudice to request remote appearance for specific hearings 14 or proceedings. 15 As to Plaintiff’s request for access to electronic filing, Petitioner makes such a 16 request “so that he may receive filings promptly, reduce mailing costs, and comply with the 17 court’s deadlines efficiently.” Id. at 3. Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 18 133(b)(2), parties appearing pro se, like Petitioner, must file documents in paper. Pro se litigants 19 may request an exception to be permitted to access the electronic filing. See Local Rule 20 133(b)(3). Plaintiff has not provided any explanation as to why receiving and filing documents in 21 paper is insufficient. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to file electronically will be denied without 22 prejudice. 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file second amended complaint, ECF No. 16, 3 is GRANTED; 4 2. This action will proceed on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, ECF 5 No. 17; 6 3. Plaintiff's request for remote appearance and electronic filing, ECF No. 18, 7 is DENIED without prejudice; 8 4. Defendants are directed to respond to Plaintiff's second amended 9 complaint within 30 days of this order. 10 11 | Dated: November 10, 2025 Ss..c0_, DENNIS M. COTA 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28