Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mona S. Murillo, proceeding pro se, sued Jonathan P. Cota and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California under Case No. 3:25-cv-00574-BJC-VET. On November 4, 2026, the court filed Document 81, an order dated November 3, 2026, resolving six pending matters in one ruling: Murillo's June 24, 2026 motion for default judgment (ECF No. 66); defendants' motion to strike that motion (ECF No. 67); Murillo's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 69); her notice of intent to stand by the original complaint (ECF No. 76); defendants' ex parte motion for screening or, in the alternative, an extension of time to file a responsive pleading (ECF No. 77); and her motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (ECF No. 79).
Murillo explained that the proposed second amended complaint would contain all the claims she wished to move forward with, cure deficiencies identified in the original screening order, and substitute the John Doe defendants with their now-known names and titles. Because the amendment request determined which pleading would remain operative, the court addressed it first. The order granted leave to amend but did not decide whether the proposed claims could survive screening or otherwise evaluate their merits.
The procedural posture matters: the court was ruling on a motion for leave to amend, not entering default judgment, reconsidering an earlier order, or conducting a fresh merits screening of the amended allegations. Nothing in the order indicates that the court had yet evaluated the substance of the proposed claims.
The Court’s Holding
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), explaining that a complaint generally may be amended once as a matter of course and that any later amendment requires leave within the court's discretion, citing Swanson v. United States Forest Service, 87 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 1996). It identified the four considerations drawn from Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962): undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, futility of amendment, and prejudice to the opposing party. Having considered those factors, and taking into account Murillo's pro se status, the court found it appropriate to grant leave to file a second amended complaint, and the motion at ECF No. 79 was granted.
Because the court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, it denied as moot the five remaining pending motions: the default-judgment motion (ECF No. 66), the motion to strike (ECF No. 67), the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 69), the notice of intent to stand by the original complaint (ECF No. 76), and defendants' ex parte screening-or-extension request (ECF No. 77), without resolving their underlying requests on the merits. The court directed the Clerk of Court to docket the proposed second amended complaint currently at ECF No. 79-1 as a separate docket entry, and it ordered defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint by no later than December 11, 2026.
The order is therefore a procedural reset rather than a merits ruling: it did not grant default judgment, did not reconsider any earlier ruling, and did not conduct a fresh screening of the amended allegations.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 15(a) permits one amendment as a matter of course, while subsequent amendments generally require the court's discretionary leave.
- The court considered undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, futility of amendment, and prejudice to the opposing party, together with Murillo's pro se status.
- Granting leave to amend mooted all five other pending motions rather than resolving their underlying requests on the merits.
- The clerk must separately docket the proposed second amended complaint at ECF No. 79-1.
- Defendants must answer or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint by December 11, 2026.
Why It Matters
The decision resets the operative pleading and the parties' immediate procedural obligations without deciding the validity of Murillo's claims. It also illustrates how a permitted amendment can displace motions aimed at an earlier complaint, including requests for default judgment, reconsideration, screening, and more time to respond.
The ruling is expressly tied to the Rule 15 factors and Murillo's pro se status. It should not be read as a finding that every proposed amendment was nonfutile on the merits or that the new claims will survive later screening or dispositive motions.