Clinton v. Allison

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 7, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-01471
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARKEITH CLINTON, Case No.: 23-cv-1471-CAB-SBC CDCR #AY-1315, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 v. (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 14 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE KATHLEEN ALLISON, Secretary of 15 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CDCR, et al., [ECF NO. 39]; AND 16 Defendants. 17 (2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE UPON 18 DEFENDANT P. BINGHAM 19 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) AND FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(3) 20

21 Presently before the Court is a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint to 22 Add a Party or Parties filed by Plaintiff Markeith Clinton. (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff submitted 23 a proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) concurrently with his motion. (ECF No. 24 39-1.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.1 25

26 27 1 “Generally, a motion for leave to amend the pleadings is a nondispositive matter that may be ruled on by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).” Morgal v.Maricopa 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 On August 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF 3 No. 1.) On October 12, 2023, District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo granted Plaintiff’s 4 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), triggering the Court’s obligation to screen 5 the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A, and dismissed the 6 complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint 7 (“FAC”) on January 30, 2024. (ECF No. 9.) On April 29, 2024, the district judge issued a 8 Screening Order Re the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 10.) The Court found that 9 Plaintiff’s FAC alleged plausible Eighth Amendment and conspiracy violations as to some 10 defendants, but failed to state any other viable claim for relief upon which section 1983 11 relief could be granted. (Id. at 2.) Specifically, Judge Bencivengo found “only Plaintiff’s 12 Eighth Amendment failure to protect allegations involving John Does 1 and 2, and his 13 conspiracy allegations involving Sgt. Allen, Officer Colon, John Does 1-3, and Jane Doe 14 4 sufficient to warrant [] an answer.” (Id. at 19 (internal quotations omitted).) The Court 15 directed the U.S. Marshal to effect service of process upon Defendants Allen and Colon 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). (Id.)2 The Court further stated 17 that Plaintiff was required to “identify [the Doe defendants], submit an amended pleading 18 and/or file a motion to substitute each Doe’s true name, and request U.S. Marshal service 19 upon each of these individuals as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 before any 20 claims alleged against them may proceed.” (Id. at 19 n.8.) 21 In the motion presently before the Court, Plaintiff requests leave to file an “amended 22 complaint adding parties.” (ECF No. 39 at 1.) He explains that since the filing of the FAC, 23 he has determined that the identity of Defendant John Doe 1 is B. Colon, who is already a 24 25 26 amend would be considered dispositive if a party is denied the opportunity to assert a new 27 claim or defense (e.g., when the ruling is with prejudice and there is no further opportunity to file another motion to amend). Id. 28 1 named defendant in this action, and the identity of Defendant John Doe 2 is P. Bingham. 2 (Id.) Plaintiff states that his proposed Second Amended Complaint reflect the identities of 3 these defendants. (Id.) 4 On January 28, 2025, Defendants Allen and Colon filed a Partial Statement of Non- 5 Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Request for Screening 6 Order. (ECF No. 41.) Defendants state that they “do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion to update 7 the allegations regarding B. Colon and the inclusion of P. Bingham” but that their non- 8 opposition “extends to only the narrow updates regarding the identities of the Doe 9 Defendants.” (Id. at 2.) They oppose Plaintiff’s motion and proposed SAC “to the extent 10 Plaintiff seeks to re-plead causes of action that the court already dismissed—even as to the 11 Doe Defendants.” (Id.) 12 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 13 Federal Rule of Civil Rule 15(a)(2) directs that “[t]he court should freely give leave 14 [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “In exercising its 15 discretion” whether to allow a party to amend, the Court “must be guided by the underlying 16 purpose of Rule 15–to facilitate decision on the merits rather than on the pleadings or 17 technicalities.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).3 Thus, 18 while leave to amend is not guaranteed, it “should be granted with extreme liberality.” 19 Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court must be especially 20 generous permitting a pro se plaintiff to amend his or her pleadings. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 21 334 F.3d 850, 861 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting leave to amend “should be granted more liberally 22 to pro se plaintiffs”). Considering the liberality espoused by the Federal Rules, the Court 23 should not deny a motion to amend “unless amendment would cause prejudice to the 24 opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue delay.” Yakama Indian 25 26 27 3 All citations, internal quotation marks, and subsequent history are omitted unless 28 1 Nation v. State of Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, 176 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 1999); see also 2 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 3 III. DISCUSSION 4 A. Leave to Amend is Warranted 5 Plaintiff states that he amended his complaint to reflect the identities of Defendants 6 John Doe 1 and John Doe 2. (ECF No. 39 at 1.) The factual allegations in Plaintiff’s 7 proposed SAC are largely copied from his FAC, other than inserting Defendant Colon for 8 “John Doe 1” and Defendant P. Bingham for “John Doe 2.” (Compare ECF No. 9 with 9 ECF No. 39-1.) Given that Plaintiff was advised by the district judge of his obligation to 10 identify the Doe defendants and “submit an amended pleading and/or file a motion to 11 substitute each Doe’s true name,” (ECF No. 10 at 19 n.8), the Court finds Plaintiff’s 12 proposed SAC, which does exactly that, readily satisfies Rule 15. Defendants do not 13 oppose the substitution of Defendant Colon as Defendant John Doe 1 and P. Bingham as 14 Defendant John Doe 2. (ECF No. 41 at 2.) 15 Accordingly, leave to amend is warranted, and the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 16 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint to Add a Party or Parties. (ECF No. 39.) 17 The Clerk is directed to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint, filed at ECF No. 18 39-1, as a separate pleading on the court docket. 19 B. Request to Screen SAC 20 Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s proposed SAC includes claims previously 21 dismissed by the Court as to both the named defendants and the Doe defendants. (ECF No. 22 41 at 2-3.) They suggest that “[i]f the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion, the Court should re- 23 screen Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint.” (Id. at 3.) 24 The Court declines to screen Plaintiff’s SAC. Where the Court has determined a pro 25 se prisoner’s pleading contains a cognizable claim, “if an amended complaint [is] filed,” 26 defense counsel must “defend the case by filing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or face a 27 default judgment.” Rincon v. Cate, No. 09cv2698–JLS (NLS), 2011 WL 1642615, at *2 28 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011). The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) does not require 1 the Court, “either explicitly or implicitly,” to re-screen every amended complaint. Olausen 2 v. Murguia, No. 3:13-CV-00388-MMD, 2014 WL 6065622, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 12, 2014). 3 Indeed, that argument “has been repeatedly rejected by courts in this District and 4 throughout the Ninth Circuit as unsupported by the text of the [PLRA] and contrary to its 5 purpose.” Hernandez v. Williams, No. 21-cv-944-WQH-KSC, 2022 WL 2392457, at *2 6 (S.D. Cal. June 30, 2022) (collecting cases). Furthermore, by insisting the Court screen 7 Plaintiff’s SAC, Defendants Allen and Colon ignore Judge Bencivengo’s clear directive 8 that they must respond to Plaintiff’s FAC “and any subsequent pleading Plaintiff may file 9 in this matter in which they are named as parties.” (ECF No. 10 at 21.) 10 C. Defendants’ Request for Extension of Discovery Deadlines 11 Defendants seek a continuance of the current discovery deadlines by at least ninety 12 days. (ECF No. 41 at 4.) The Court finds that the filing of Plaintiff’s SAC establishes good 13 cause to continue the scheduling order dates. The Court will separately issue an amended 14 scheduling order. 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint 17 to Add a Party or Parties (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED. The Court hereby: 18 1) DIRECTS the Clerk to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint, filed 19 at ECF No. 39-1, as a separate pleading on the court docket. 20 2) DIRECTS the Clerk to issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Second Amended 21 Complaint upon Defendant P. Bingham, and forward it to him along with a blank U.S. 22 Marshal Form 285 for Defendant Bingham. In addition, the Clerk will provide Plaintiff 23 with a certified copy of this Order, its October 12, 2023 Order Granting IFP (ECF No. 6), 24 a certified copy of his Second Amended Complaint, and the summons so that he may serve 25 this named defendant. Upon receipt of this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff must complete the 26 Form 285 as completely and accurately as possible, include an address where Defendant 27 Bingham may be found and/or subject to service, and return it to the United States Marshal 28 according to the instructions the Clerk provides in the letter accompanying his IFP package. 1 3) | ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of Plaintiff's Second Amended 2 ||Complaint and summons upon Defendant P. Bingham at the address provided by Plaintiff 3 the USM Form 285 provided, and to file an executed waiver of personal service upon 4 || Defendant Bingham with the Clerk of Court as soon as possible after its return. Should 5 || Defendant fail to return the U.S. Marshal’s request for waiver of personal service within 6 || 90 days, the U.S. Marshal must instead file the completed Form USM 285 Process Receipt 7 Return with the Clerk of Court, include the date the summons, Second Amended 8 ||Complaint, and request for waiver was mailed to Defendant Bingham, and indicate why 9 service remains unexecuted. All costs of service will be advanced by the United States; 10 || however, if Defendant is located within the United States and fails without good cause to 11 and return the waiver requested by the Marshal on Plaintiff's behalf, the Court will 12 |}impose upon Defendant any expenses later incurred in making personal service. See 28 13 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). 14 3) ORDERS Defendants Allen and Colon to respond to Plaintiff's Second 15 || Amended Complaint within the time provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3). 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: February 7, 2025 18 Be FG.

7] United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28