Fields v. Junious et al
Filing
47
ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of the Court to DISMISS Defendants Maurice Junious, R. Davis, Dan Leon, Jennifer Jones, and L. Cruz; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 42 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and STRIKING Amended Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/9/2011. Jennifer Jones, Maurice Junious, Dan Leon, L. Cruz and R. Davis terminated. (Sant Agata, S)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
KEVIN E. FIELDS,
10
Plaintiff,
11
12
CASE NO. 1:09-CV-01771-AWI-DLB PC
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE
COURT TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS
MAURICE JUNIOUS, R. DAVIS, DAN
LEON, JENNIFER JONES, AND L. CRUZ
(DOC. 39)
v.
MAURICE JUNIOUS, et al.,
13
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
AND STRIKING AMENDED COMPLAINT
(DOC. 42)
14
/
15
16
Plaintiff Kevin E. Fields (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California
17
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in
18
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding
19
on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed October 8, 2009, against Defendants L. Cruz, K. Foley, D. B.
20
Hernandez, Jennifer Jones, Maurice Junious, Dan Leon, R. Magvas, S. Marsh, L. Molina, and J.
21
Tucker. Pending before the Court are: 1) Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal of certain
22
Defendants, filed July 11, 2011, and 2) Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint, filed August
23
22, 2011. Docs. 39, 42. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
24
I.
25
Voluntary Dismissal
On July 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed notice of his intent to voluntarily dismiss Defendants
26
Maurice Junious, R. Davis, Dan Leon, Jennifer Jones, and L. Cruz from this action with
27
prejudice. Doc. 39. On August 25, 2011, Defendants filed notice that they do not oppose said
28
dismissal, and stipulate to it. Doc. 43.
1
1
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to dismiss
2
Defendants Maurice Junious, R. Davis, Dan Leon, Jennifer Jones, and L. Cruz from this action
3
pursuant to Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal.
4
II.
Motion For Leave To Amend
5
Plaintiff moves to amend his pleadings. Pl.’s Mot., Doc. 42. Plaintiff refers only to his
6
proposed first amended complaint as support. Pl.’s Am. Compl., Doc. 40. Defendants filed an
7
opposition on September 9, 2011. Defs.’ Opp’n, Doc. 44.
8
9
“Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so
requires.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2006)
10
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the
11
amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue
12
delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id. The factor of “‘[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is
13
insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.’” Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,
14
Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712-13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 (9th
15
Cir. 1999)). However, “‘[w]here the party seeking amendment knows or should know of the
16
facts upon which the proposed amendment is based but fails to include them in the original
17
complaint, the motion to amend may be denied,’” E.E.O.C. v. Boeing, Co., 843 F.2d 1213, 1222
18
(9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Jordan v. County of L.A., 669 F.2d 1311, 1324 (9th Cir. 1982),
19
vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S. 810 (1982)), and the “court’s discretion to
20
deny leave to amend is particularly broad where the court has already given the plaintiff an
21
opportunity to amend his complaint,” Fidelity Financial Corp. v. Federal Home Loan Bank of
22
San Francisco, 792 F.2d 1432, 1438 (9th Cir. 1986).
23
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint removes Defendants Junious, Leon, Davis, Jones, and
24
Cruz, and adds a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a state law claim.
25
Defendants contend that Plaintiff provides no rationale whatsoever for amendment now. The
26
Court agrees with Defendants. Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress
27
could have been filed in his operative pleading as it derives from the same alleged facts as
28
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim. However, Plaintiff did not file the claim then. The alleged
2
1
2
facts have not substantively changed.
Plaintiff also may not amend as a matter of course, as Plaintiff’s proposed amended
3
complaint was filed well after Defendants had filed a responsive pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
4
15(a). The Court finds no good reason has been presented for amendment.
5
require that Plaintiff be allowed to amend his complaint to add another claim. Plaintiff’s first
6
amended complaint will be stricken to avoid confusion.
7
Justice does not
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, filed
8
August 22, 2011, is denied. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed July 26, 2011, is
9
STRICKEN.
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
3b142a
November 9, 2011
/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
