Carrie James, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al.

Opinion

CARRIE JAMES, et al., Case No. 22-cv-05939-SI

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' v. MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 154 Defendants.

Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint is scheduled for a hearing on January 9, 2026. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the motion. On November 24, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint to re-add a claim under Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Plaintiffs state that they obtained “newly discovered evidence” on November 17, 2024, and that this evidence “directly supports” a Monell claim. Motion at 1, 5. The newly discovered evidence consists of testimony by Contra Costa deputies from the March 2022 criminal preliminary hearing for inmates Anderson and Johnson (the two inmates who attacked the decedent), about other attacks by Anderson and Johnson in the time period prior to the attack on the decedent, and about the general prevalence of fights between inmates at the Martinez Detention Facility.1 Plaintiffs assert that this evidence supports a Monell claim based on failure to train and supervise deputies regarding inmate on inmate attacks, maintaining grossly inadequate procedures to prevent inmate on inmate attacks, and maintaining a policy of inaction with regard to inmate on inmate attacks. Proposed Amended Compl. ¶ 41. Defendants oppose the motion to amend on several grounds, arguing that plaintiffs have unduly delayed, that allowing amendment would prejudice defendants, and that the proposed amendment is futile. Defendants state that after the Court dismissed the Monell claim without prejudice in September 2023, plaintiffs did not do any discovery to try to identify facts or witnesses to support such a claim, and it was only a month before the discovery cut-off that plaintiffs served written discovery on defendants. In response to those requests, defendants produced the transcript from the March 2022 preliminary hearing – a transcript that defendants state has always been available to plaintiffs. Rule 15(a)(2) instructs the Court to “freely” grant a motion to amend pleadings unless (1) doing so would prejudice the opposing party; (2) the amendment is sought in bad faith; (3) the amendment causes undue delay; or (4) the proposed amendment would add a futile claim. AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006). The opposing party bears the burden to show why leave to amend should not be granted. Genentech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 127 F.R.D. 529, 530 (N.D. Cal. 1989). The Court concludes that defendants have met their burden to demonstrate why plaintiffs’ motion should be denied. Fact discovery closed on November 21, 2025. Plaintiffs have not provided any explanation for why they did not conduct discovery in support of a Monell claim until October 2025. Further, as defendants note, the “newly discovered evidence” consists of a publicly available transcript of the preliminary hearing in the related state court criminal case, and plaintiffs do not explain why they did not obtain this transcript earlier. Allowing amendment would prejudice defendants because discovery is closed, and reopening factual discovery would require amending the pretrial schedule—which the Court is not inclined to do given the advanced age of these consolidated cases. See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Sols., Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1 1999) (“a need to reopen discovery and therefore delay the proceedings supports a district court’s 2 finding of prejudice from a delayed motion to amend the complaint”). 3 More importantly, even if there was no undue delay or prejudice, the Court finds that the 4 proposed amendment is futile. When the Court dismissed the Monell claim in September 2023, the 5 Court considered plaintiffs’ allegations that inmates Johnson and Anderson had attacked other 6 inmates before they attacked the decedent, and that the County had failed to train deputies about 7 how to prevent or respond to inmate on inmate attacks. See Third Amend. Compl. §[{]12-13, 39-40. 8 The “newly discovered evidence” provides slightly more factual detail on the prevalence of inmate 9 on inmate attacks at the Martinez Detention Facility and the timing of other attacks by Anderson 10 and Johnson, but does not provide any additional factual support for a Monell claim based on failure 11 to train, policy of inaction, or maintaining inadequate procedures. For example, plaintiffs’ proposed 12 amended complaint does not contain any factual allegations regarding the County’s training 13 program and how it is deficient, nor are there any allegations about the substance of the allegedly 14 inadequate policies and procedures. Cf Bell v. Williams, 108 F.4th 809, 824-26 (9th Cir. 2024) 3 15 (affirming jury verdict of excessive force in favor of disabled prisoner plaintiff where deputies 16 extracted prisoner from cell without accommodations for his disability, but reversing jury verdict 3 17 in favor of the plaintiff on Monell failure to train claim and discussing in depth the evidence 18 regarding training). The Court cannot infer that the County’s training program is deficient, or that 19 the County has inadequate policies and procedures, based simply on plaintiffs’ allegations that 20 inmate on inmate attacks are common at the Martinez Detention Facility. Cf. id. 21 23 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion to amend. 24 ° Gute Mle 27 Dated: December 30, 2025 SUSAN ILLSTON 28 United States District Judge