Smith et al v. Schwarzenegger et al, No. 1:2014cv00060 - Document 188 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Denying Plaintiffs' Motion To Amend The Consolidated Complaint (ECF No. 182 ), Objections Due Within Fourteen Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/19/2015. F&R's referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 11/4/2015. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COREY LAMAR SMITH, et al., 12 13 14 Case No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB Plaintiffs, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO AMEND THE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., (ECF No. 182) 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 17 18 I. 19 BACKGROUND 20 On May 20, 2015, this court issued a findings and recommendations recommending 21 granting Defendants motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint filed in this action on the 22 ground that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 164.) Plaintiffs filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations on June 24, 2015. (ECF No. 175.) 24 While the findings and recommendations was still pending before the district judge, 25 Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the consolidated complaint on September 9, 2015. (ECF No. 26 182.) This motion was stayed pending the district judge s decision on the outstanding findings 27 and recommendations. (ECF No. 184.) On October 7, 2015, a memorandum decision and order 28 issued dismissing the Eighth Amendment claims without leave to amend on the ground that 1 1 Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 2 over the state law claims raised in the consolidated complaint.1 3 memorandum order left this action open so the undersigned could rule on the pending motion to 4 amend the consolidated complaint. 5 6 (ECF No. 186.) The Accordingly, this Court now addresses the motion to amend the consolidated complaint filed on September 9, 2015. 7 II. 8 DISCUSSION 9 Amendments of the pleadings are governed by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil 10 Procedure. Under Rule 15(a), a party may amend the party s pleading once as a matter of course 11 at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave 12 of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when 13 justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend „shall be 14 freely given when justice so requires. ” Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 15 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant 16 leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad 17 faith; (3) produces an undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id. 18 In this instance, Plaintiffs seek leave to file an amended consolidated complaint to add the 19 former secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as a defendant in 20 this action. (ECF No. 182 at 2.) In the October 7, 2015 memorandum order, the Court found that 21 Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the Eighth Amendment claims under any 22 definition of the constitutional right at issue. (ECF No. 186 at 10.) Therefore, the Eighth 23 Amendment claims were dismissed without leave to amend. (Id. at 23.) As the Court has 24 determined that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims raised in the 25 consolidated complaint and the federal claims have been dismissed without leave to amend, the 26 Court finds that amendment of the complaint to add an additional defendant would be futile. 27 28 1 The stay of this motion shall be lifted by order filed subsequently with this findings and recommendations. 2 1 Accordingly, the Court recommends that the motion to amend the consolidated complaint be 2 denied. 3 III. 4 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 5 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 6 1. Plaintiffs motion to file an amended consolidated complaint be DENIED; and 7 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this action. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 9 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen 10 (14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these 11 findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 12 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge s Findings and Recommendations.” The 13 district judge will review the magistrate judge s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 14 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 15 time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th 16 Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 19, 2015 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.