1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLOS MARTINEZ, No. 1:22-cv-01170 GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 v. (ECF No. 24) 14 SECRETARY OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 15 AND REHABILITATION, et al., DISREGARD PLAINTIFF’S SECOND LODGED FOURTH AMENDED 16 Defendants. COMPLAINT AS IMPROPERLY FILED 17 (ECF No. 25) 18 19 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 20 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 Before this Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint 23 (“4thAC”). ECF No. 24. Plaintiff has lodged the 4thAC. See ECF No. 25. 24 For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. In addition, the Clerk of 25 Court will be ordered to disregard the 4thAC as improperly lodged. 26 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 27 A. Plaintiff’s Initial Unsolicited Amended Complaint 28 After Plaintiff’s original complaint was docketed in September 2022 (see ECF No. 1) 1 (original complaint), Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and along 2 with it he filed an unsolicited first amended complaint (“FAC”). See ECF Nos.7 (Motion) & 8 3 (FAC). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed another motion to amend requesting leave to file a second 4 amended complaint (“SAC”), lodged it, and thereafter was granted leave to do so. See ECF Nos. 5 10, 11 &12 (Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend; Plaintiff’s lodged SAC; Court’s grant of 6 same). 7 On March 15, 2024, Plaintiff’s SAC was screened. ECF No. 13. In the screening order 8 the Court found that the SAC failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 as it did not 9 contain a short and plain statement as is required. Id. at 4. As a result, Plaintiff was ordered to 10 file a third amended complaint (“TAC”). Id. 11 On April 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a TAC. ECF No. 14. However, approximately four 12 months later—without the TAC having been screened--Plaintiff filed yet another request for leave 13 to file an amended complaint and lodged with it an unsolicited 4thAC. See ECF Nos. 15, 16 14 (Plaintiff’s request for leave to file fourth amended complaint; 4thAC). Because Plaintiff had not 15 been granted leave to file a 4thAC, on August 26, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for 16 leave to amend and disregarded Plaintiff’s lodged 4thAC. See ECF No. 17. 17 B. Plaintiff’s Appeal 18 On September 5, 2024, Plaintiff’s Notice of Interlocutory Appeal which contested the 19 Court’s denial of his motion to amend was docketed and processed. ECF Nos. 18, 19. Shortly 20 thereafter, on September 24, 2024, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal for 21 lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 22. Specifically, citing to In re San Vicente Med. Partners Ltd., 22 865 F.2d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1989), the Appellate Court determined that because this Court’s 23 order which denied Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a 4thAC was neither final nor appealable, 24 the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. Id. 25 II. PLAINTIFF’S SECOND UNSOLICITED FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 26 On October 7, 2024, following the Circuit Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s interlocutory 27 appeal, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for leave to file a 4thAC, lodged a 4thAC, and addressed 28 his motion to the Chief Judge of this District-- apparently due to his misinterpreting of the 1 Appellate Court’s ruling which ruled that the Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction to decide 2 Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal, not that this Court lacked jurisdiction to decide Plaintiff’s motion 3 for leave to file a 4thAC. ECF Nos.22 & 24. Plaintiff seemingly believes incorrectly, and 4 concludes incorrectly, that because he was never advised by the Clerk of this Court of his right to 5 consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, and because he in fact did not consent, that this was the 6 basis for the Appellate Court’s decision finding an absence of Jurisdiction. ECF No. 24 at 1- 2. 7 Finally, Plaintiff argues that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)-(d) entitles him to 8 amend his complaint in good faith “without causing delay or prejudices to the defendants….” 9 ECF No. 24 at 3. 10 III. DISCUSSION 11 A. Court’s Denial of Leave to Amend Unappealable 12 As stated above, Plaintiff’s interpretation of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on appeal is 13 incorrect. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal 14 because this Court’s denial of his motion to amend did not constitute a final, appealable order. 15 See ECF No. 22 (Ninth Circuit opinion). As a result, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the Ninth 16 Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal. 17 B. The Undersigned has Jurisdiction to Make Rulings in this Case 18 The undersigned has authority to issue rulings in this case. See, 28 USC 636(b)(1)(B) and 19 Local Rule 302.
20 C. Court’s Discretion to Deny Leave to Amend 21 District courts have broad discretion to deny leave to amend when a plaintiff has 22 previously amended the complaint. See, Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th 23 Cir. 1990) (quoting Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989)). 24 Therefore, because Plaintiff in this case has previously been granted leave to amend (see above), 25 it is within the discretion of the Court to deny further requests to do so. D. Plaintiff’s Newly Lodged 4thAC Adds Unrelated Claims (Rule 20) 26 Of equal importance is Rule 20 which prohibits the adding of unrelated claims when 27 amending a complaint. Relevantly, a comparison of Plaintiff’s original complaint with 28 1 Plaintiff’s lodged 4thAC (ECF No. 25) reveals that Plaintiff has added additional defendants 2 and claims that were not in his original complaint. In the original complaint, Plaintiff raises two 3 claims of due process violations against two defendants stemming from an alleged false “Only 4 Rules Violation Report” which Plaintiff claims was authored on September 2, 2021 and later 5 “ratified” on January 22, 2022. See generally ECF No. 1 at 1-5 (original complaint). 6 However, in the lodged 4thAC, Plaintiff raises seven claims against twelve defendants. See 7 ECF No. 25 at 1-22. 8 Of the seven claims in the lodged 4thAC, it appears that only the first claim concerns the 9 alleged false “Only Rules Violation Report” contained in the original complaint. See id. at 5-6. 10 As to the other 6 claims in the lodged 4thAC: 1- in claim 2, which is alleged to have occurred 11 on or around May 2022, concerns one of the defendants determining that Plaintiff was required 12 to serve 80% of a six-year enhancement he received in his original sentence. Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLOS MARTINEZ, No. 1:22-cv-01170 GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 v. (ECF No. 24) 14 SECRETARY OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 15 AND REHABILITATION, et al., DISREGARD PLAINTIFF’S SECOND LODGED FOURTH AMENDED 16 Defendants. COMPLAINT AS IMPROPERLY FILED 17 (ECF No. 25) 18 19 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 20 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 Before this Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint 23 (“4thAC”). ECF No. 24. Plaintiff has lodged the 4thAC. See ECF No. 25. 24 For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. In addition, the Clerk of 25 Court will be ordered to disregard the 4thAC as improperly lodged. 26 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 27 A. Plaintiff’s Initial Unsolicited Amended Complaint 28 After Plaintiff’s original complaint was docketed in September 2022 (see ECF No. 1) 1 (original complaint), Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and along 2 with it he filed an unsolicited first amended complaint (“FAC”). See ECF Nos.7 (Motion) & 8 3 (FAC). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed another motion to amend requesting leave to file a second 4 amended complaint (“SAC”), lodged it, and thereafter was granted leave to do so. See ECF Nos. 5 10, 11 &12 (Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend; Plaintiff’s lodged SAC; Court’s grant of 6 same). 7 On March 15, 2024, Plaintiff’s SAC was screened. ECF No. 13. In the screening order 8 the Court found that the SAC failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 as it did not 9 contain a short and plain statement as is required. Id. at 4. As a result, Plaintiff was ordered to 10 file a third amended complaint (“TAC”). Id. 11 On April 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a TAC. ECF No. 14. However, approximately four 12 months later—without the TAC having been screened--Plaintiff filed yet another request for leave 13 to file an amended complaint and lodged with it an unsolicited 4thAC. See ECF Nos. 15, 16 14 (Plaintiff’s request for leave to file fourth amended complaint; 4thAC). Because Plaintiff had not 15 been granted leave to file a 4thAC, on August 26, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for 16 leave to amend and disregarded Plaintiff’s lodged 4thAC. See ECF No. 17. 17 B. Plaintiff’s Appeal 18 On September 5, 2024, Plaintiff’s Notice of Interlocutory Appeal which contested the 19 Court’s denial of his motion to amend was docketed and processed. ECF Nos. 18, 19. Shortly 20 thereafter, on September 24, 2024, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal for 21 lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 22. Specifically, citing to In re San Vicente Med. Partners Ltd., 22 865 F.2d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1989), the Appellate Court determined that because this Court’s 23 order which denied Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a 4thAC was neither final nor appealable, 24 the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. Id. 25 II. PLAINTIFF’S SECOND UNSOLICITED FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 26 On October 7, 2024, following the Circuit Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s interlocutory 27 appeal, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for leave to file a 4thAC, lodged a 4thAC, and addressed 28 his motion to the Chief Judge of this District-- apparently due to his misinterpreting of the 1 Appellate Court’s ruling which ruled that the Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction to decide 2 Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal, not that this Court lacked jurisdiction to decide Plaintiff’s motion 3 for leave to file a 4thAC. ECF Nos.22 & 24. Plaintiff seemingly believes incorrectly, and 4 concludes incorrectly, that because he was never advised by the Clerk of this Court of his right to 5 consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, and because he in fact did not consent, that this was the 6 basis for the Appellate Court’s decision finding an absence of Jurisdiction. ECF No. 24 at 1- 2. 7 Finally, Plaintiff argues that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)-(d) entitles him to 8 amend his complaint in good faith “without causing delay or prejudices to the defendants….” 9 ECF No. 24 at 3. 10 III. DISCUSSION 11 A. Court’s Denial of Leave to Amend Unappealable 12 As stated above, Plaintiff’s interpretation of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on appeal is 13 incorrect. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal 14 because this Court’s denial of his motion to amend did not constitute a final, appealable order. 15 See ECF No. 22 (Ninth Circuit opinion). As a result, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the Ninth 16 Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal. 17 B. The Undersigned has Jurisdiction to Make Rulings in this Case 18 The undersigned has authority to issue rulings in this case. See, 28 USC 636(b)(1)(B) and 19 Local Rule 302.
20 C. Court’s Discretion to Deny Leave to Amend 21 District courts have broad discretion to deny leave to amend when a plaintiff has 22 previously amended the complaint. See, Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th 23 Cir. 1990) (quoting Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989)). 24 Therefore, because Plaintiff in this case has previously been granted leave to amend (see above), 25 it is within the discretion of the Court to deny further requests to do so. D. Plaintiff’s Newly Lodged 4thAC Adds Unrelated Claims (Rule 20) 26 Of equal importance is Rule 20 which prohibits the adding of unrelated claims when 27 amending a complaint. Relevantly, a comparison of Plaintiff’s original complaint with 28 1 Plaintiff’s lodged 4thAC (ECF No. 25) reveals that Plaintiff has added additional defendants 2 and claims that were not in his original complaint. In the original complaint, Plaintiff raises two 3 claims of due process violations against two defendants stemming from an alleged false “Only 4 Rules Violation Report” which Plaintiff claims was authored on September 2, 2021 and later 5 “ratified” on January 22, 2022. See generally ECF No. 1 at 1-5 (original complaint). 6 However, in the lodged 4thAC, Plaintiff raises seven claims against twelve defendants. See 7 ECF No. 25 at 1-22. 8 Of the seven claims in the lodged 4thAC, it appears that only the first claim concerns the 9 alleged false “Only Rules Violation Report” contained in the original complaint. See id. at 5-6. 10 As to the other 6 claims in the lodged 4thAC: 1- in claim 2, which is alleged to have occurred 11 on or around May 2022, concerns one of the defendants determining that Plaintiff was required 12 to serve 80% of a six-year enhancement he received in his original sentence. Id. at 7-8; 2- in 13 claim 3, Plaintiff alleges that as a Mexican National he is entitled to equal treatment under the 14 law – like other inmates – and therefore should have received $200.00 in “release allowance” 15 when he was released from custody back in 1996; 3- in claim 4, Plaintiff raises claims 16 regarding the loss of time credits he sustained during the period of 2006-2007; 4-claim 5 17 concerns three alleged false rules violation reports issued in 2024, which is well after the date 18 the original complaint was filed back in September 2022; 5- claim 6 concerns an allegation of 19 improper RVR hearing proceedings related to a battery charge brought against Plaintiff in May 20 2022; and, 6- claim 7 concerns a denial of medical attention allegedly occurring between 21 September 2022 through January 2024. Thus it appears that Claims 2 through 7 in the 4thAC 22 are all unrelated to the claims made in the original complaint-- and therefore violative of Rule 23 20. Per Rule 20, a Plaintiff is not permitted to add new, unrelated claims when he amends his 24 complaint. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (stating Plaintiff may not 25 change the nature of suit by alleging new, unrelated claims). 26 E. Plaintiff Has Previously Been Granted Leaves to Amend 27 Prior to Plaintiff’s original complaint being screened, he requested and was granted 28 leave to file a first amended complaint as a matter of course. (ECF Nos. 7 & 9). Thereafter, 1 and prior to the first amended complaint being screened, Plaintiff requested leave to file a 2 second amended complaint (ECF No. 10), which was granted (ECF No. 12). Thereafter, the 3 Court screened the second amended complaint and in the screening order directed Plaintiff to 4 file a third amended complaint. (ECF No. 13). In compliance, on April 11, 2024, Plaintiff 5 filed a third amended complaint. (ECF No. 14). This is now the operative complaint which 6 the Court intends to screen in due course. 7 V. CONCLUSION 8 For reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion to file a 4thAC (ECF. No. 24) will be denied 9 and the Clerk of Court will be directed to disregard the lodged 4thAC (ECF. No.25) as 10 improperly filed. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Plaintiff’s second motion for leave to file a 4thAC (fourth amended complaint) (ECF 13 No. 24) is DENIED, and 14 2. The Clerk of Court shall DISREGARD Plaintiff’s lodged 4thAC (fourth amended 15 complaint) (see ECF No. 25) as improperly filed. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18
19 Dated: December 16, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20
22 23 24 25 26 27 28