(PC) Valenzuela v. Santiesteban

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIO A. VALENZUELA, Case No. 1:20-cv-01093-JLT-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED 13 v. COMPLAINT (ECF No. 76) 14 SANTIESTEBAN, et al., ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 15 Defendants. FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT LODGED ON APRIL 8, 2025 AS FIRST AMENDED 16 COMPLAINT (ECF No. 30, pp. 4–10) 17 18 19 Plaintiff Mario A. Valenzuela (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in 20 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds 21 against Defendants Santiesteban, Rodriguez, and Alejo for excessive force in violation of the 22 Eighth Amendment and against Defendant Perez for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth 23 Amendment, arising from the incident on June 22, 2019. 24 Pursuant to the Court’s March 4, 2025 amended discovery and scheduling order, the 25 deadline for all stipulated amendments or motions to amend shall be filed by June 2, 2025. (ECF 26 No. 74.) 27 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint and 28 proposed first amended complaint, filed April 8, 2025. (ECF No. 76.) Plaintiff states that the 1 request is made to clarify legal and factual allegations, incorporate newly discovered evidence, 2 and ensure a full and fair adjudication of the claims before the Court. Plaintiff states that 3 although the Court issued findings and recommendations on his original complaint on October 1, 4 2020, no final order has been entered and therefore Plaintiff maintains the right to seek 5 amendment of his pleadings.1 In light of newly identified evidence and additional parties with 6 direct involvement in the alleged misconduct, justice necessitates that Plaintiff be granted leave to 7 amend. Plaintiff has identified additional parties who were involved in the alleged conduct but 8 were not previously named due to not knowing who they were, as Plaintiff had never seen them 9 before, and Plaintiff suffered from a lack of access to records and discovery constraints. (Id.) 10 Defendants did not file a response or other opposition, and the deadline to do so has 11 expired. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 12 Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s 13 pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. 14 Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse 15 party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “Rule 15(a) 16 is very liberal and leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires.” 17 AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and 18 quotation omitted). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: 19 (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in 20 litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id. 21 As Defendants have filed an answer in this action, Plaintiff may amend only by written 22 consent of Defendants or by leave of Court. In considering the relevant factors, the Court finds 23 no evidence of prejudice, bad faith, undue delay in litigation, or futility. Plaintiff states that he is 24 adding additional defendants who were previously unknown to him. However, a review of the 25 proposed first amended complaint reveals that the only additional defendant is Officer Gamboa, 26 who was named in the original complaint, and the proposed first amended complaint omits

27 1 The Court notes that an order adopting the findings and recommendations was issued by the then-assigned District Judge on October 21, 2020. (ECF No. 13.) However, Plaintiff is correct that pursuant to the Court’s March 4, 2025 28 amended discovery and scheduling order, he remains entitled to seek amendment of his pleadings. (ECF No. 74.) 1 Defendant Alejo entirely. The remaining factual allegations largely comport with those set forth 2 in the original complaint regarding the incident at issue. In light of these findings, and 3 Defendants’ waiver of any opposition,2 Plaintiff’s motion to amend shall be granted. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 5 1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file amended complaint, (ECF No. 76), is GRANTED; 6 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file the amended complaint lodged on April 8, 7 2025, (ECF No. 76, pp. 4–10), as the first amended complaint, as of the date of the instant 8 order; and 9 3. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint will be screened in due course. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

12 Dated: May 15, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 Pursuant to the Court’s March 4, 2025 amended discovery and scheduling order, “Unless otherwise ordered, all . . . 27 motions pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7, 11, 12, 15, 41, 55, 56, 59 and 60 . . . shall be briefed pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). Failure to timely oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. 28 L.R. 230(l).” (ECF No. 74, p. 3.)