Saddozai v. Bolanes et al, No. 5:2018cv04511 - Document 44 (N.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; STRIKING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL; DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT; GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE; GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION by Judge Beth Labson Freeman.(tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2020)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Saddozai v. Bolanes et al Doc. 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 SHIKEB SADDOZAI, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; STRIKING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL; DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT; GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE; GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION v. 13 14 Case No. 18-04511 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, DR. SPENCER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 (Docket Nos. 28, 29, 32, 34, 38, 40) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court found the amended complaint, Dkt. No. 10, stated a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and ordered the matter served on Defendants Dr. Spencer and Nurse Amanda at the San Mateo County Jail. Dkt. No. 14. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on January 30, 2020. Dkt. No. 31. The Court addresses several pending motions below. 25 26 27 28 DISCUSSION A. Motions Re Appointment of Counsel The Court denied each of Plaintiff’s three motions for appointment of counsel for Dockets.Justia.com United States District Court Northern District of California 1 lack of exceptional circumstances, with the last order filed on December 16, 2019. Dkt. 2 Nos. 9, 14, 25. On January 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to 3 file a motion for reconsideration of the last court order, and subsequently the motion for 4 reconsideration asserting new grounds on March 5, 2020. Dkt. Nos. 28, 38. The Court 5 grants the motion for an extension of time such that the reconsideration motion is deemed 6 timely filed. Although titled differently, these two papers are essentially the same. Id. 7 Plaintiff additionally requests a preliminary injunction and court order for prison officials 8 to “cease and desist violence, harassment and retaliation to interefer[e] with plaintiff’s civil 9 action.” Dkt. No. 38 at 2. Plaintiff is currently being housed at Corcoran State Prison 10 (“CSP”), which is not a party to this action. Accordingly, the Court has no jurisdiction 11 over CSP or any of its employees in this action to issue an injunctive order against them. 12 Plaintiff must file any new claims against CSP employees in a separate civil rights action. Plaintiff asserts the following grounds for appointment of counsel: lack of legal 13 14 material and access to the law library and legal assistance, and the need for assistance to 15 conduct discovery. Dkt. No. 38 at 4-7. The Court notes that despite the challenges he 16 alleges, Plaintiff managed to file another motion to amend the complaint and the proposed 17 amended complaint. Dkt. Nos. 32, 37. With respect to discovery, Plaintiff recently filed a 18 motion requesting more time to conduct discovery which is generally articulate and 19 organized. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED for lack of changed 20 circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th 21 Cir. 2004); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 22 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 23 1986). This denial is without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte appointment of counsel 24 at a future date should the circumstances of this case warrant such appointment. 25 B. 26 27 28 Motion to Seal Documents Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 31, along with an administrative motion to file under seal certain documents in order to protect Plaintiff’s 2 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 medical privacy, Dkt. No. 29. Plaintiff filed opposition to the motion. Dkt. No. 33. In 2 reply, Defendants withdraw their motion to seal, inferring by his opposition that Plaintiff 3 consents to his unredacted medical records being filed with the Court and being publicly 4 accessible. Dkt. No. 36. There being no dispute on this issue, Defendants’ motion to seal 5 shall be STRICKEN, and the documents at issue shall not be filed under seal. 6 C. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and Defendants’ Motion to Strike 7 After Defendants filed their summary judgment motion on January 30,2020, 8 Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint on February 10, 2020. Dkt. No. 32. 9 Defendants filed opposition to the motion. Dkt. No. 35. On the same day that Defendants 10 filed their opposition, March 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed a proposed amended complaint which 11 would constitute a second amended complaint (“SAC”). Dkt. No. 37. On March 13, 2020, 12 Defendants filed a motion to strike the SAC. Dkt. No. 40. Plaintiff did not file a reply in 13 response to Defendants’ opposition to his motion, nor did he file an opposition to 14 Defendants’ motion to strike. At this late stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff may only file an amended complaint 15 16 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), which provides that a party may amend its 17 pleading “only with the opposing party’s written or the court’s leave. The court should 18 freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).1 Federal Rule of 19 Civil Procedure 15(a) is to be applied liberally in favor of amendments and, in general, 20 leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. See Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 21 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994); cf. id. (attempt to amend complaint requiring amendment of 22 scheduling order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 must be based upon good cause). “In the 23 absence of any apparent or declared reason–such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory 24 motive on the part of the movant, . . . undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of 25 26 27 28 As Defendants correctly point out, the time for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1)(B) expired 21 days after service of the amended complaint, i.e., on January 21, 2020. Dkt. No. 40 at 3-4, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). 1 3 1 allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.–the leave sought should, as the 2 rules require, be ‘freely given.’” Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059, 1073 (9th 3 Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Leave need not be granted where the amendment of the 4 complaint would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is sought in bad faith, 5 constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates undue delay. See Janicki Logging Co., 42 F.3d 6 at 566; Roberts v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 661 F.2d 796, 798 (9th Cir. 1981). A district 7 court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where the plaintiff has 8 previously filed an amended complaint. Wagh v. Metris Direct, Inc., 363 F.3d 821, 830 9 (9th Cir. 2003); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). United States District Court Northern District of California 10 The Court found the amended complaint filed on December 31, 2018, stated a 11 cognizable claim against the two named Defendants, Dr. Spencer and Nurse Amanda, at 12 the San Mateo County jail for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Dkts. No. 13 10, 14. In his motion to amend, Plaintiff requests leave to amend in order to include 14 additional defendants: San Mateo County Correctional Health Services [“CHS”], Redwood 15 City, and the Sheriff of San Mateo County Jail Maguire Facility, Dkt. No. 32 at 1; he later 16 names these Defendants in the SAC. Dkt. No. 37 at 2. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Spencer 17 and Nurse Amanda were acting “in the capacity as an agent, servant and employee” who 18 “provided medical services under contract through defendants, [CHS], acting within the 19 course and scope of their employment and under color and scope of their employment.” 20 Id. at 4. Plaintiff also claims that the Sheriff of San Mateo County and Redwood City 21 “failed to provide adequate medical staff or qualified medical staff, and or medical 22 services, and failed to remedy unlawful conditions that they know about and ignored 23 knowing they will not be held accountable for damages that resulted from a general policy, 24 pattern, and or practice and defendants medical provider, [CHS], unwillingness to respond 25 to inmate requests for treatment….” Id. Plaintiff claims that the Sheriff “conspired or 26 acted jointly under the color of state law pursuant to policy or custom with [Redwood 27 City],” who are “county policymakers at least for the purpose of the jail management….” 28 4 1 United States District Court Northern District of California 2 Id. at 5-7. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s original complaint, Dkt. No. 1, named San Mateo 3 County Sheriff Bolanos and CHS as defendants, and that although the Court granted 4 Plaintiff leave to amend to attempt to allege specific facts against them, Plaintiff 5 effectively “dropped” them from this action by not including them in the amended 6 complaint, Dkt. No. 10. Dkt. No. 40 at 4-5. Defendants also assert that Plaintiff filed the 7 SAC in bad faith since the motion for leave to do so was still pending at the time, and that 8 they will also suffer undue prejudice since their summary judgment is currently pending 9 before the Court and they would have to respond to a third round of pleadings and file new 10 dispositive motions. Id. at 6. Defendants move for the SAC be stricken in its entirety, or 11 in the alternative, be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Id. 12 The Court finds that leave to file the SAC should be denied based on undue delay 13 and Plaintiff’s failure to explain the reason for the delay, as well undue prejudice to 14 Defendants. See Janicki Logging Co., 42 F.3d at 566. As Defendants point out, Plaintiff 15 first named the Sheriff of San Mateo County and CHS in the original complaint but did not 16 allege any specific facts against them. Dkt. No. 1. On December 10, 2018, the Court 17 dismissed the complaint with leave to amend so that Plaintiff could attempt to state 18 sufficient facts to state a claim against them. Dkt. No. 9. In the order, the Court laid out 19 the legal standard to state a claim against individual defendants and against local 20 governments under Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Id. at 3. 21 When Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 31, 2018, he did not include the 22 Sheriff or CHS in the complaint, indicating either that he could not name a claim against 23 them individually or under Monell or that he was simply foregoing attempting to do so. 24 Dkt. No. 10. Then he waited over 14 months thereafter to file another amended complaint 25 on March 5, 2020, naming these Defendants and attempting to state a claim against them. 26 Dkt. No. 37. Plaintiff provides no explanation for the delay in his motion and has filed no 27 reply to Defendants’ opposition, or an opposition to their motion to strike the SAC to 28 5 1 refute their assertion that they would be unduly prejudiced by another amendment.2 2 Furthermore, the fact that Plaintiff has already filed an amended complaint gives the court 3 broad discretion to deny leave to amend now. See Wagh, 363 F.3d at 830. Accordingly, 4 the motion to amend is DENIED. Dkt. No. 32. Defendants’ motion to strike the SAC is 5 GRANTED. Dkt. No. 40. 6 D. After Defendants filed their summary judgment motion on January 30, 2020, Dkt. 7 United States District Court Northern District of California Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery 8 No. 31, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to complete discovery “so that 9 plaintiff can get evidence to defeat summary judgment.” Dkt. No. 34 at 2. The Court 10 construes the motion as one for an extension of time to file opposition to Defendants’ 11 summary judgment motion. Defendants oppose the motion as untimely and unsupported 12 by good cause. Dkt. No. 39. The motion was filed on February 28, 2020, but is dated February 10, 2020. Dkt. 13 14 No. 34 at 5. With the benefit of the mailbox rule,3 the Court finds the motion is timely 15 filed within the deadlines provided in the Court’s Order of Service. Dkt. No. 14 at 5. 16 Plaintiff also shows good cause for an extension of time based on delays in his mail and 17 limited access to the prison law library. Dkt. No. 34 at 2-4. Accordingly, the motion is 18 GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an opposition in the time set forth below. 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants filed opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to amend on March 5, 2020, Dkt. No. 35, such that Plaintiff’s reply thereto was due by March 19, 2020. Defendants filed their motion to strike on March 13, 2020, Dkt. No. 40, such that Plaintiff’s opposition was due by March 27, 2020. He filed neither. The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a letter on April 13, 2020, which is dated April 7, 2020, asserting lack of access to the prison law library and its resources. Dkt. No. 42. He makes no indication therein that this lack of access has hindered his ability to file a response to any of Defendants’ filings. 2 3 See Faile v. Upjohn Co., 988 F.2d 985, 988 (9th Cir. 1993). 6 CONCLUSION 1 2 For the reasons discussed above, the Court orders as follows: 3 1. 4 5 Dkt. Nos. 28, 38. 2. Defendants’ administrative motion to file under seal has been withdrawn. 6 Dkt. No. 36. Accordingly, the motion is STRICKEN. The Clerk shall terminate the 7 motion. 8 9 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of appointment of counsel is DENIED. 3. Plaintiff’s motion to amend is DENIED. Dkt. No. 32. Defendants’ motion to strike the amended complaint is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 40. The second amended complaint filed on March 5, 2020, shall be STRICKEN. Dkt. No. 37. 4. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to complete discovery and file an 12 opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 34. Plaintiff’s 13 opposition shall be filed no later than forty-five (45) days from the date this order is 14 filed. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than twenty-one (21) days after 15 Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 16 This order terminates Docket Nos. 28, 29, 32, 34, 38, and 40. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: __April 16, 2020_______ ________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order Addressing Pending Motions PRO-SE\BLF\CR.18\04511Saddozai_mots 26 27 28 7
]]>
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.
