(PC) DePonte v. Stohl
1:25-cv-00674
E.D. Cal.Jun 27, 2025Background
- David Arthur DePonte, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The action was originally filed in the Sacramento Division and later transferred to the Eastern District of California.
- Defendants have not yet been served or appeared in the case.
- DePonte moved to amend his complaint to identify the defendants by name, which he learned after filing the original complaint.
- The original complaint has not yet been screened by the court, as required for pro se prisoner complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
- The court considered whether amendment would prejudice defendants, cause undue delay, be sought in bad faith, or be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to grant leave to amend | DePonte: Leave should be freely granted; now knows defendants' names | Not available (no appearance) | Granted leave |
| Whether amendment would prejudice defendants | DePonte: No prejudice as defendants not yet served | Not available | No prejudice |
| Whether amendment is in bad faith or futile | DePonte: Amendment in good faith, identifies parties | Not available | Not in bad faith or futile |
| Whether amendment would delay litigation | DePonte: No undue delay | Not available | No undue delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Pisciotta v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 1326 (9th Cir. 1996) (Leave to amend is at the trial court’s discretion.)
- United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977 (9th Cir. 1981) (Rule 15 policy favors liberal amendment of pleadings.)
- AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2006) (Court need not grant leave if amendment is prejudicial, in bad faith, unduly delayed, or futile.)
- Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (An amended complaint supersedes the original and must be complete in itself.)