-GBC (PC)Bertram v. Sizelove, et al, No. 1:2010cv00583 - Document 88 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 67 Findings and Recommendations, DENYING Plaintiff's 56 Motion to Amend Complaint, and DISMISSING Doe Defendants, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/3/2012. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-GBC (PC)Bertram v. Sizelove, et al Doc. 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 TIMOTHY BERTRAM, CASE NO: 1:10-cv-00583-AWI-GBC (PC) 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 C. SIZELOVE, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT, AND DISMISSING DOE DEFENDANTS 12 Defendants. 13 / Docs. 56, 58, 67 14 15 On April 5, 2010, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 16 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 22, 2010, the Court dismissed 17 certain claims and found a cognizable claims against Defendants C. Sizelove and J. Heinzler and two 18 Doe Defendants (“Defendants”) for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs. 19 Doc. 13. The Court dismissed, with prejudice, Plaintiff’s claims of receiving a cold shower; First 20 Amendment retaliation; and return of personal property. Id. On August 2, 2011, the Court issued a 21 discovery and scheduling order, establishing a deadline of February 2, 2012 to amend pleadings, a 22 discovery deadline of April 2, 2012, and a dispositive motion deadline of June 11, 2012. Doc. 36. 23 On February 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Pleadings. 24 Doc. 56. On February 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Proposed First Amended Complaint. Doc. 58. On 25 March 19, 2012, Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to amend pleadings. Doc. 62. 26 On March 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Reply to Defendants’ opposition. Doc. 65. The matter was 27 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 28 302. Page 1 of 4 Dockets.Justia.com 1 On April 11, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations, 2 recommending to deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint and to dismiss Doe Defendants. Doc. 3 67. On May 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed Objections. Doc. 69. 4 In Plaintiff’s objections, he agrees with the dismissal of various claims and defendants, but 5 he seeks to add retaliation claims against J. Wood and J. Heinzler. Id. at 2. “Within the prison 6 context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion 7 that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s 8 protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment 9 rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. Rhodes v. 10 Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005); accord Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th 11 Cir. 2009). The Court already dismissed Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation, with prejudice. Doc. 13. 12 The court finds the law of the case doctrine requires the court to not give leave to amend a claim for 13 which the court has already given leave to amend and then dismissed with prejudice. Delta Savings 14 Bank v. United States, 265 F.3d 1017, 1027 (9th Cir. 2001). 15 Plaintiff seeks to add a claim regarding failure to deliver his legal mail. Id. First, it appears 16 that this claim is not against the current Defendants. Second, Plaintiff states he is currently 17 exhausting this claim, which would preclude filing this claim prior to exhaustion. Pursuant to the 18 Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison 19 conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, 20 prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are 21 exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is therefore mandatory, and 22 no longer left to the discretion of the district court. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006) (citing 23 Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001)). 24 Plaintiff seeks to add H. Sherwood as a defendant for deliberate indifference to medical need. 25 Pl. Obj. at 4, Doc. 69. Plaintiff states that while Plaintiff was in the holding cage, Plaintiff asked 26 Sherwood for a lower bunk due to his medical issues (seizures) and Sherwood told him, “we’ll see, 27 after what you just did, you ain’t got [expletive] coming.” Id. The two part test for deliberate 28 indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “‘a serious medical need’ by demonstrating that Page 2 of 4 1 ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and 2 wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately 3 indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 4 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) 5 (en banc)). Plaintiff’s allegation of Sherwood’s threat against him is insufficient to demonstrate 6 deliberate indifference to medical need. Mere verbal harassment or abuse alone is not sufficient to 7 state a claim under § 1983, Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987), and threats 8 do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation, Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987). 9 It is well-established that the Court may deny leave to amend if amendment would be futile. 10 Nordyke v. King, 644 F.3d 776, 788 n.12 (9th Cir. 2011); Serra v. Lapin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th 11 Cir. 2010); Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 990-92 (9th Cir. 2009); Deveraturda v. Globe 12 Aviation Security Services, 454 F.3d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 2006); Thinket Ink Information Resources, 13 Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 368 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th Cir. 2004); Saul v. U.S., 928 F.2d 829, 843 14 (9th Cir. 1991). Evaluating whether a proposed amendment is futile requires the Court to determine 15 whether the amendment would withstand a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 12(b)(6), and in making this evaluation, the Court is confined to review of the proposed amended 17 pleading. Nordyke, 644 F.3d at 788 n.12 (citing Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th 18 Cir. 1988) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, __, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)). 19 20 The Court finds that it would be futile to grant Plaintiff’s motion to amend and add additional defendants, as his proposed amended complaint fails to state a claim against the new defendants. 21 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 22 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 23 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. 26 27 28 The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations, filed on April 11, 2012, in full; 2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint is DENIED, as futile, for failure to state a claim against Doe Defendants and proposed new additional Defendants; and Page 3 of 4 1 3. 2 3 Doe Defendants are DISMISSED from this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: 0m8i78 August 3, 2012 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 4 of 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
