United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge
District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
filed by Plaintiff Michael Denton to United States Magistrate
Judge David W. Christel. Plaintiff has filed two Motions to
Request Funds for Legal Materials, Legal Books, and for
Investigator to Interview Witnesses (“Motions for
Funds”), a Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint (“Motion to Amend”), and a Motion for
an Order Compelling Discovery (“Motion to
Compel”). Dkt. 80, 85, 86, 89. After review of the
relevant record, the Court denies the Motions for Funds (Dkt.
80, 85), grants the Motion to Amend (Dkt. 86), and denies the
Motion to Compel (Dkt. 89). Plaintiff must file his second
amended complaint on or before May 12, 2017. The Clerk is
directed to re-note the pending Motions for Temporary
Restraining Order (Dkt. 52, 56, 72) to May 12, 2017.
Motions for Funds (Dkt. 80, 85)
filed two Motions for Funds requesting the Court provide him
with monetary funds to pay for legal materials, legal books,
and an investigator to interview witnesses. Dkt. 80, 85.
Plaintiff contends Defendants are denying him access to
necessary legal materials and, therefore, he is unable to
litigate this case. Dkt. 80, 85. “The Supreme Court has
declared that the expenditure of public funds on behalf of an
indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by
Congress.” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210,
211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal quotations omitted).
“The federal courts have uniformly held that an
indigent prisoner litigant must bear his own costs of
litigation.” Hollis v. Sloan, 2012 WL 5304756,
at *5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2012). “Also, the in forma
pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public
funds for the appointment of an investigator.”
Williams v. Schwarzenegger, 2009 WL 900049, at *8
(E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2009). As Plaintiff must bear his own
costs of litigation, his Motions for Funds (Dkt. 80, 85) are
Motion to Amend (Dkt. 86)
filed the Motion to Amend on March 20, 2017. Dkt. 86.
Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his Amended Complaint because
he found mistakes in the Amended Complaint after further
investigation and the Amended Complaint contains errors in
the Prayer for Relief. Id. Defendants did not file a
response to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend. See
to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course
A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course
within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is
required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or
21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or
(f), whichever is earlier.
(2) Other Amendments
In 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
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and the time has expired
for filing an amendment as a matter of course, Plaintiff
cannot amend pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1). See Dkt. 25,
26. To amend the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff must have
Defendants' written consent or the Court's leave.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).
Defendants have not provided Plaintiff with written consent,
they have not filed any opposition to the Motion to Amend.
Plaintiff seeks to correct errors in his Prayer for Relief
and in other portions of his Amended Complaint. See
Dkt. 86. As Plaintiff is seeking to correct deficiencies in
his Amended Complaint, the Court finds justice requires
Plaintiff be given leave to amend. See Eldridge v.