Benjamin Espinosa v. George Davis, et al.

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * BENJAMIN ESPINOSA, Case No. 3:25-CV-00355-MMD-CLB 5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 6 v. COMPLAINT GEORGE DAVIS, et. al., [ECF No. 24] 8 Defendants.

10 Before the Court is Plaintiff Benjamin Espinosa’s (“Espinosa”) motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 24.) Defendants filed a non-opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 25). For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion.

13 I. LEGAL STANDARD 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) instructs that “[t]he court should freely give[] leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires.” The Ninth Circuit has made clear Rule 15(a) permits liberal application. Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013). Under Rule 15(a), courts consider various factors, including: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) the futility of the amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended his complaint. Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014). The factors do not weigh equally; rather, prejudice receives the greatest weight.

22 Brown v. Stored Value Cards, Inc., 953 F.3d 567, 574 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)).

24 Defendants bear the burden of establishing prejudice, and absent its presence or a “strong showing” under the other factors, there is a presumption in favor of permitting amendment. Eminence Cap., LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186-87 (9th Cir. 1987)). When considering prejudice, the court nature that requires the opposing party to defend against “different legal theories and . . .

2 different facts.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 953 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation omitted). Alone, such alteration is not fatal. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990).

5 By contrast, futility “alone can justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend.”

6 Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 7 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995)). Futility arises when the amendment is legally insufficient, Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 656 (9th Cir. 2017), or where the amended complaint would be subject to dismissal, such as when it violates the statute of limitations, Platt Elec. Supply, Inc. v. EOFF Elec., Inc., 522 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2008).

11 II. DISCUSSION 12 Espinosa seeks to amend his complaint to add factual allegations to his claims. In addition, the amended complaint dismisses Defendant Dzurenda and limits the case to the following two claims for relief: (1) an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against Defendants Davis, Henley, Hartman, and John/Jane Does; and (2) a claim for violations of Article 1, § 6 of the Nevada Constitution against Defendants Davis, Henley, Hartman, and John/Jane Does. (ECF No. 24-1.) Defendants filed a non- opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 25.)

The Court finds that the motion to amend should be granted, as the above factors discussed in Desertrain weigh in Espinosa’s favor. First, rather than bad faith, the record demonstrates that Espinosa is acting in good faith to amend his complaint to provide more factual detail to his claims and narrow the named the defendants. Second, Espinosa timely filed his motion. Therefore, the Court finds that Espinosa did not delay in seeking amendment.

Third, Defendants are not prejudiced by the amendment, as it merely seeks to provided further factual allegations and clarify the defendants and claims in the litigation.

Thus, the Court does not find that the amended complaint greatly alters the litigation’s nature or requires an entirely new course of defense. Morongo Band of Mission Indians, 893 F.2d at 1079. Finally, the Court finds that the requested amendment is not futile. In 2| sum, the above Desertrain factors each weigh in Espinosa’s favor, and, therefore, the | Court concludes amendment is proper.

4 Additionally, pursuant to LR 7-2(d), the failure of an opposing party to file points | and authorities in response to any motion constitutes a consent to the granting of the | motion. As Defendants explicitly filed an non-opposition to the motion, it should be | granted on this basis as well.

IV. CONCLUSION 9 For the reasons discussed above, IT IS ORDERED that Espinosa’s motion for | leave to file a first amended complaint, (ECF No. 24), is GRANTED.

11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall FILE Espinosa’s first amended complaint, (ECF No. 24-1), which is now the operative complaint in this case.

13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the first amended complaint will PROCEED with: 14 e Claim 1: Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against 15 Defendants Davis, Henley, Hartman, and John/Jane Does 16 e Claim 2: Nevada State Constitution Article 1, § 6 claim against Defendants 17 Davis, Henley, Hartman, and John/Jane Does 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file and serve an answer or 49 other response to the second amended complaint within 60 days from the date of this 20 order.

DATED: December 30, 2025 .

93 UNITED STATES\MAGISTRATE JUDGE