Eaton

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 ADAM JAY STONE, Case No.: 1:26-cv-01368-CDB (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED

13 v. COMPLAINT

14 PATRICK EATON, et al., (Doc. 8)

15 Defendants. 21-DAY DEADLINE

16

17 Plaintiff Adam Jay Stone (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

18 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have not been served or otherwise

19 appeared in this action.

20 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint,

21 filed on April 6, 2026. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to sue Defendants in both

22 their individual and official capacities and has attached only the section to be amended to the filing.

23 See id. at 1, 2-3.

24 Governing Authority

25 Leave to amend a pleading “is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court,” Pisciotta

26 v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 1326, 1331 (9th Cir. 1996), and “[t]he court should freely give

27 leave when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In exercising its “discretion, a court must

be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on

1 the pleadings or technicalities…. Accordingly, Rule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to

2 pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979

3 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal quotation marks & citations omitted). “But a district court need not grant

4 leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith;

5 (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist

6 W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).

7 Discussion

8 Plaintiff’s original complaint has not yet been screened by the Court. See 28 U.S.C. §

9 1915A(a). Following review of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds granting leave to amend would

10 not prejudice the opposing parties. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 951. The Court also

11 finds that leave is not sought in bad faith nor would it produce an undue delay in this litigation. Id.

12 Finally, the Court cannot find, at least at this point, that granting leave to amend would be futile.

13 Id.

14 However, Plaintiff is advised that his motion does not operate to amend or supplement his

15 original complaint. Rather, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Lacey v.

16 Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, any amended complaint must be

17 “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. Because

18 Plaintiff’s filing proposes only a portion of his complaint to be amended rather than a proposed

19 amended complaint that is “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded

20 pleading,” he will be directed to file a compliant amended complaint as set forth below.

21 Additionally, although the Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s complaint, because

22 Plaintiff seeks to amend to sue Defendants in both their individual and official capacities, the Court

23 summarizes the following relevant authority to advise Plaintiff that the Eleventh Amendment bars

24 suits for damages against state officials in their official capacities.

25 The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against a state

26 by its own citizens, as well as by citizens of other states. See Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley

27 Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991). This prohibition extends to suits against states

1 Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. A state’s agency responsible for incarceration and correction of prisoners

2 is a state agency for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781,

3 782 (1978) (per curiam). The State of California has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity

4 for federal claims under section 1983. Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025–26 (9th Cir.

5 1999) (citing Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 241 (1985)); see Brown v. Cal.

6 Dep’t. of Corrs., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding California Department of Corrections

7 and California Board of Prison Terms entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity). Therefore,

8 insofar as Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to sue a state agency, that state entity is immune

9 from suit.

10 Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to a state official sued in federal court in his

11 official capacity. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking damages, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits

12 for money damages in federal court against state officials in their official capacity. Aholelei v.

13 Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). However, it does not bar a suit for

14 damages against state officials in their personal capacities. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 30 (1991);

15 Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 491 (9th Cir. 2003). Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to

16 amend his complaint to sue state official defendants in their official capacities for damages, those

17 defendants are immune from suit for damages.

18 A claim for prospective injunctive relief against a state official in his or her official capacity

19 is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment provided the official has authority to implement the

20 requested relief. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 92 (1989). Moreover, “[a]

21 plaintiff seeking injunctive relief against the State is not required to allege a named official’s

22 personal involvement in the acts or omissions constituting the alleged constitutional violation.”

23 Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Hafer, 502

24 U.S. at 25; Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985)).

25 Accordingly, upon review of Plaintiff’s motion to amend, the undersigned finds good cause

26 to grant the motion. See Local Rule 137(c). Plaintiff will be directed to file a first amended

27 complaint as set forth below. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s operative pleading, whether the

1 Conclusion and Order

2 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3 1. Plaintiff's Motion for leave to amend and file a first amended complaint (Doc. 8) is

4 GRANTED;

5 2. Plaintiff SHALL FILE any first amended complaint within 21 days from the date of

6 service of this order. If Plaintiff wishes to stand on his original complaint (Doc. 1), he

7 is DIRECTED to file a notice of his intent to stand on his original complaint for

8 screening by that same deadline; and

9 3. The Court shall proceed with screening Plaintiff's operative complaint in due course.

10 | ITIS SO ORDERED.

| Dated: _ April 9, 2026 | hrnnrD bo

12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28