Shepard v. Tilton et al
Filing
35
ORDER GRANTING 27 Plaintiff's Motion and Dismissing Defendant J. Campos From Action and ORDER DENYING 28 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend His Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/9/2011. (Jessen, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
LAMONT SHEPARD,
CASE NO. 1:10-CV-00023-DLB PC
9
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
AND DISMISSING DEFENDANT J.
CAMPOS FROM ACTION
10
v.
11
JAMES E. TILTON, et al.,
(DOC. 27)
12
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT
13
14
/
(DOC. 28)
15
Plaintiff Lamont Shepard (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California
16
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in
17
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding
18
on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed January 6, 2010, against Defendants L. A. Martinez, R. Perez, P.
19
Garcia, J. Soto, E. De la Cruz, J. Campos, and A. Trevino for violation of the Eighth
20
Amendment. Pending before the Court is: 1) Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Defendant Trevino
21
from this action filed August 26, 2011, and 2) Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint, filed
22
August 30, 2011. Docs. 27, 28.
23
I.
Motion To Dismiss Defendant Campos
24
Plaintiff moves for dismissal of Defendant J. Campos from the action. Doc. 27. Plaintiff
25
states that Defendant J. Campos resembled Defendant Soto, and thus included in this action.
26
Plaintiff has discovered that Defendant J. Campos was not the correct officer, but rather
27
Defendant Soto. Defendants do not oppose the motion. Defs.’ Opp’n 1:25-26, Doc. 30.
28
1
1
Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), the Court finds dismissal of Defendant Campos proper.
2
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Defendant Campos
3
from the action, filed August 26, 2011, is GRANTED. Defendant Campos is dismissed from the
4
action. This dismissal is with prejudice.
5
II.
6
Motion To Amend Complaint
Plaintiff moves for leave to amend his complaint to include claims against officer
7
Miranda, captain Seifert, and lieutenant Brodie. Pl.’s Mot., Doc. 28. Defendants oppose the
8
motion as unreasonable, prejudicial, and futile. Defs.’ Opp’n 2:19-4:24, Doc. 30.
9
“Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so
10
requires.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2006)
11
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the
12
amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue
13
delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id. The factor of “‘[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is
14
insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.’” Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,
15
Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712-13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 (9th
16
Cir. 1999)). However, “‘[w]here the party seeking amendment knows or should know of the
17
facts upon which the proposed amendment is based but fails to include them in the original
18
complaint, the motion to amend may be denied,’” E.E.O.C. v. Boeing, Co., 843 F.2d 1213, 1222
19
(9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Jordan v. County of L.A., 669 F.2d 1311, 1324 (9th Cir. 1982),
20
vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S. 810 (1982)), and the “court’s discretion to
21
deny leave to amend is particularly broad where the court has already given the plaintiff an
22
opportunity to amend his complaint,” Fidelity Financial Corp. v. Federal Home Loan Bank of
23
San Francisco, 792 F.2d 1432, 1438 (9th Cir. 1986).
24
Plaintiff had named Miranda, Seifert, and Brodie in his complaint, but did not list them as
25
Defendants. Plaintiff provides no explanation as to why amendment should be granted, other
26
than citing to his pleadings. However, the pleadings do not state a claim against these three
27
individuals and would thus be futile. Against Miranda, Plaintiff alleges only that Miranda stood
28
in front of the door and was ordered to not let anyone in. Compl. ¶ 23, Doc. 1. Against Seifert,
2
1
Plaintiff alleges only that he awoke to the sounds of Seifert yelling at Defendants, Seifert told
2
Plaintiff to calm down that he saw what happened, Seifert ordered Plaintiff to another building
3
for decontamination, and that Seifert called Internal Affairs. Compl. ¶¶ 30-33. Against Brodie,
4
Plaintiff alleges only that Brodie told Plaintiff that he did not condone what the officers did.
5
Compl. ¶ 33.
6
The above alleged facts do not demonstrate a violation of any of Plaintiff’s federal or
7
constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants are for excessive force in violation
8
of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff’s claims against Miranda, Seifert, and Brodie appear
9
premised on a theory of failing to intervene. Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th Cir.
10
1995). However, Plaintiff makes no allegations that the three proposed Defendants actually
11
caused a constitutional violation. See Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (“A
12
person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section
13
1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform
14
an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is
15
made.”) (internal quotations omitted). There are no facts that demonstrate any of three knew of
16
and disregarded an excessive risk of serious harm to Plaintiff’s safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511
17
U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Allowing amendment of the pleadings would appear futile.
18
The Court provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend his complaint. Doc. 7.
19
Plaintiff opted to proceed only on the cognizable claims. Doc. 10. Plaintiff was aware of the
20
facts alleged in his complaint at the time he filed it, and indicates no new or recently discovered
21
facts that would merit amendment of his pleadings.
22
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint,
23
filed August 30, 2011, is DENIED.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated:
3b142a
November 9, 2011
/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?
