Mahone v. Pierce County et al, No. 3:2014cv05665 - Document 40 (W.D. Wash. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 33 Motion to Amend. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint identifying the John Doe Defendants, restating his claims against the County and Sheriff Pastor for inadequate training and supe rvision, and alleging facts to support his conspiracy claims on or before February 6, 2015. The remainder of Plaintiff's motion to amend (Dkt. 33) as to claims relating to the investigation of his grievance is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Mahone v. Pierce County et al Doc. 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 SYLVESTER JAMES MAHONE, 9 CASE NO. C14-5665 BHS-KLS Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 12 13 PIERCE COUNTY, PAUL PASTOR, JOHN DOE PIERCE COUNTY JAIL DEPUTY, JOHN DOE PIERCE COUNTY JAIL DEPUTY, JOHN DOE PIERCE COUNTY JAIL DEPUTY, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff Sylvester James Mahone moves the Court for leave to file a second amended 17 complaint. Dkt. 33. Defendants oppose the motion on the grounds that granting leave to amend 18 would be futile. Dkt. 35. The Court finds that the motion to amend should be granted in part 19 and denied in part and Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file an amended complaint as discussed 20 further herein. 21 22 BACKGROUND Mr. Mahone filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on August 21, 2014. Dkt. 1. He sued 23 Pierce County, Paul Pastor, and three John Doe Deputies alleging that he was assaulted by the 24 John Doe Deputies during a court escort in 2013. He alleges that his constitutional rights were ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND- 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 violated by John Doe Deputies’ excessive use of force and the County’s failure to adequately 2 train and supervise its employees. Dkt. 1. After the complaint was served, Mr. Mahone filed an 3 amended complaint naming the same parties and alleging the same claims. Dkt. 9. Defendants 4 filed their answer to the amended complaint. Dkt. 16. 5 Mr. Mahone filed his present motion to amend on December 18, 2014. Dkt. 33. In his 6 proposed second amended complaint, Mr. Mahone adds two new defendants, conspiracy claims, 7 claims related to the handling of his grievance, and he identifies the John Doe Defendants 8 previously named in his amended complaint. Dkt. 33-1. 9 10 DISCUSSION Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) directs a court to grant leave to amend if justice 11 so requires. “A district court should grant leave to amend ... unless it determines that the pleading 12 could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lacey v. Maricopa, 693 F.3d 896, 13 926 (9th Cir.2012). In other words, “requests for leave to amend should be granted with extreme 14 liberality....” Mirmehdi v. United States, 689 F.3d 975, 985 (9th Cir.2012). 15 For a Rule 15(a) motion, the non-moving party bears the burden of persuading the court 16 that leave should not be granted. Breakdown Services, Ltd. v. Now Casting, Inc., 550 F.Supp.2d 17 1123, 1132 (C.D.Cal.2007) (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186–87 (9th 18 Cir.1987). The Court considers the following five factors in its analysis when leave to amend is 19 requested: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to opposing party, (4) futility of 20 amendment, and (5) whether the complaint was previously amended. United States v. 21 Corinthian Colleges, 665 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir.2011). Ordinarily, there is a presumption that 22 leave to amend should be granted absent a strong showing of one of the five factors. Eminence 23 Capitol, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir.2003). 24 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND- 2 1 As noted above, Mr. Mahone’s first amendment was filed prior to the time the 2 Defendants filed their answer. There is no evidence that Plaintiff advances his proposed second 3 amendment in bad faith, with undue delay, or that the proposed amendment will cause prejudice 4 to the opposing party. According to the Court’s pretrial scheduling order, the parties still have 5 four months to complete discovery and six months to file dispositive motions. Dkt. 19. 6 However, Defendants argue that amendment is futile. The Court has reviewed the existing 7 amended complaint and proposed second amended complaint and finds that the motion to amend 8 should be granted in part and denied in part as follows: 9 A. 10 Identification of John Doe Defendants The proposed second amended complaint identifies Terry Rembert, Jesse Boyle, Scott 11 Kasten, and Ilsop Lee as the individual officers who allegedly used excessive force on February 12 7, 2013. Dkt. 33-1, pp. 2-4. These parties were previously identified in Mr. Mahone’s pleadings 13 as “John Doe” defendants. 14 Defendants argue that amending the complaint to identify the officers previously 15 identified as “john does” in Plaintiff’s amended complaint is futile because they are entitled to 16 qualified immunity. The question at this juncture in the litigation is whether Plaintiff has stated a 17 viable claim for relief. Qualified immunity is not a broad shield that automatically protects all 18 state defendants because all allegedly shared the same reasonable belief. Qualified immunity 19 must be decided with regard to each individual defendant based on his or her duty to act and his 20 or her conduct. See Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1289 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring district 21 court to “analyze the acts of each individual defendant in its qualified immunity analysis”). 22 Before the Court can decide whether state defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because 23 they reasonably believed they acted in accordance with their legal duty in light of clearly 24 established law, it needs concrete facts on what each officer in fact did or did not do. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND- 3 1 Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint to identify the “john doe” officers 2 allegedly involved in using excessive force is GRANTED. 3 B. Allegations of Conspiracy 4 In the proposed second amended complaint, Mr. Mahone alleges that Officers Rembert, 5 Boyle, Kasten, and Lee “colluded to write false incident reports of this beating” and Officers 6 George Wasson and Tony Genga “colluded in their decision” to not interview eye witnesses to 7 the assault so as to “cover up” the assault. Dkt. 33-1, pp. 10-11. 8 Mr. Mahone fails to state a viable claim of conspiracy. To establish a cause of action 9 under a § 1983 conspiracy claim, the plaintiff must prove “(1) the existence of an express or 10 implied agreement among the defendant officers to deprive him of his constitutional rights, and 11 (2) an actual deprivation of those rights resulting from that agreement.” Ting v. United States, 12 927 F.2d 1504, 1512 (9th Cir.1991). To show a conspiracy under § 1983 there must be an 13 agreement or meeting of the minds to violate the plaintiff's constitutional rights. Woodrum v. 14 Woodward County, 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir.1989). 15 Mr. Mahone has fallen far short of setting forth facts establishing a conspiracy. He 16 merely states that the parties conspired. He pleads no facts surrounding or relating to the alleged 17 conspiracy which would allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendants are 18 liable for the misconduct alleged. To survive dismissal, a complaint must contain sufficient 19 factual matter that states a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 20 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Where a complaint pleads facts that are 21 merely consistent with a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and 22 plausibility of entitlement to relief. Id., 129 S.Ct. at 1950 (citations omitted). 23 However, Mr. Mahone shall be GRANTED leave to amend his complaint to include to 24 the extent possible, facts supporting his claim that the parties conspired. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND- 4 1 C. Grievance Investigation 2 In the proposed second amended complaint, Mr. Mahone names as defendants Scott 3 Wasson and Tony Genga as the officers who investigated his grievance. Mr. Mahone alleges 4 that these individuals failed to interview two inmate witnesses who had been identified as eye 5 witnesses to the alleged assault. Dkt. 33-1, p. 6. 6 Defendants argue that this claim must be dismissed because Mr. Mahone has no 7 constitutional right to have his grievance investigated in a particular manner. The Court agrees. 8 Inmates have no constitutional right to particular prison grievance procedures. Mann v. Adams, 9 855 F.2d 639 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898 (1988); Stewart v. Block, 938 F.Supp. 10 582 (C.D.Cal.1996); Hoover v. Watson, 886 F.Supp. 410 (D.Del.1995) (aff'd, 74 F.3d 1226). 11 Furthermore, “a state grievance procedure does not confer any substantive constitutional right 12 upon prison inmates.” Hoover, 886 F.Supp. at 418 (quoting Brown v. Dodson, 863 F.Supp. 284, 13 285 (W.D.Va.1994)). Therefore, the investigating officers’ refusal to interview witnesses is not 14 an independent constitutional violation. Amending the complaint to add claims against Scott Wasson and Tony Genga based on 15 16 their investigation of Mr. Mahone’s grievance is futile. Additionally, claims against Defendant 17 Pierce County and/or Sheriff Pastor based on these same facts are similarly defective. See, e.g., 18 Dkt. 33-1, p. 14. Therefore, Mr. Mahone’s motion to amend to add claims and parties regarding 19 the handling of his grievance is DENIED. 20 D. Inadequate Training and Supervision 21 In his proposed second amended complaint, Mr. Mahone alleges that Defendants Pierce 22 County and its Sheriff Paul Pastor failed to provide adequate training, supervisory oversight, and 23 control over the defendants regarding the use of excessive force. Defendants argue that the 24 amendment should be denied because Mr. Mahone has failed to allege evidentiary and legal ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND- 5 1 elements to support a claim of municipal liability or official misconduct. However, Mr. Mahone 2 previously alleged in both his original and amended complaints that the officers used excessive 3 force during the court escort and that their use of excessive force was the result of a lack of 4 training and supervision. See e.g., Dkt. 9, p. 9. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not 5 add new claims to the complaint. 6 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 7 (1) Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Dkt. 33) is GRANTED IN PART; Plaintiff is 8 granted leave to file an amended complaint identifying the John Doe Defendants, restating his 9 claims against the County and Sheriff Pastor for inadequate training and supervision, and 10 alleging facts to support his conspiracy claims on or before February 6, 2015. The remainder 11 of Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Dkt. 33) as to claims relating to the investigation of his grievance 12 is DENIED. 13 (2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to counsel for 14 Defendants. 15 DATED this 12th day of January, 2015. 16 17 A 18 Karen L. Strombom United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND- 6
]]>
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.
