Bredberg v. Middaugh

[7] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [8] WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE [9] 10 ANTHONY JAY BREDBERG, CASE NO. C20-190 MJP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE UNTIMELY FILED 12 v. AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 RANDY MIDDAUGH, et al., 14 Defendants. [15] 16 This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s 17 Untimely Filed Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 144.) Having reviewed the Motion and the 18 related record, the Court DENIES the Motion. 19 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed his Amended Complaint on November 2, 2020, 20 when it was due three days earlier, on October 31. (Dkt. Nos. 138, 143.) Because the Court 21 grants pro se litigants greater leeway than represented litigants Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132 , 22 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982)), and “[c]ases 23 should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 24 1 1470, 1472 (9th Cir.1986), the Court will not strike the Amended Complaint based on a 2 three-day delay. Defendants’ Motion is therefore DENIED. [3] 4 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 5 Dated December 8, 2020. A [7] Marsha J. Pechman 8 United States Senior District Judge