United States District Court, W.D. Washington
JESS R. SMITH, Plaintiff,
B GRONSETH, Y STUBBS, S FRAKES, M OBENLAND, ROY GONZALEZ, M HOLTHE, WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND
W. CHRISTEL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
filed by Plaintiff Jess R. Smith to United States Magistrate
Judge David W. Christel. Presently before the Court is
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (“Motion”), in
which he seeks to amend his original Complaint.Dkt. 60.
Court concludes the interests of justice require giving leave
to amend. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is granted.
Complaint, Plaintiff - an inmate currently housed at
Washington State Penitentiary (“WSP”) - alleges
Defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was
housed at Clallam Bay Corrections Center
(“CBCC”). See Dkt. 8. Plaintiff's
claims arise from a Washington State Department of
Corrections (“DOC”) policy that Plaintiff alleges
does not allow him access to out-of-state case law. See
initiated this lawsuit on September 9, 2016. Dkt. 1. On
November 23, 2016, Defendants filed an Answer and the Court
entered Pretrial Scheduling Order, directing the parties to
complete discovery by May 23, 2017, and file dispositive
motions by June 22, 2017. See Dkt. 26, 27. On
September 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Preliminary
Injunction against Defendants. Dkt. 5.
on January 24, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. Dkt. 30. Plaintiff filed a Response to
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on February 17,
2017, and on February 27, 2017, Defendants filed a Reply.
Dkt. 38, 42.
February 8, 2017, the Court entered an Order denying
Plaintiff's Motion for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction.
Dkt. 35. Plaintiff appealed this Order to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals. Dkt. 37. Therefore, on April 11, 2017, this
Court stayed Plaintiff's case pending resolution
Plaintiff's appeal. Dkt. 47. On January 12, 2018, the
Court lifted the stay because the appeal had been
resolved. Dkt. 53.
January 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed his first Motion to Amend
the Complaint. Dkt. 57. The Court denied Plaintiff's
first Motion to Amend without prejudice on February 16, 2018
because Plaintiff failed to attach a proposed amended
complaint to that motion. Dkt 59.
March 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed the present Motion, this time
attaching the proposed amended complaint. See Dkt.
60. Defendants filed a Response to this Motion on March 30,
2018, requesting the Motion be denied because Plaintiff's
proposed amendments would be futile and prejudice Defendants.
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 ...