(PC) Vargas v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOMINIC (AKA DIAMOND) VARGAS, Case No.: 1:20-cv-000083-JLT-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED 13 v. COMPLAINT

14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF (Doc. 87) CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATION, et al.,

16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Dominic Vargas is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 In its amended order issued October 18, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff leave to file a 22 fourth amended complaint. (Doc. 79.) Specifically, the Court found: “updates and clarifications” 23 regarding “ongoing violations” were unnecessary; that the proposed fourth amended complaint 24 improperly sought to name defendants in their individual and official capacities; improperly 25 sought to add former public officers as defendants; improperly sought to order non-parties to 26 “perform procedures ‘in a more timely fashion” and was not narrowly drawn. (Id. at 9-11.) As 27 such, the Court concluded the applicable Foman1 factors weighed against granting leave to 1 amend. 2 On December 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion to File Fourth Amended 3 Complaint.” (Doc. 87.) Defendants filed an opposition on January 3, 2025. (Doc. 89.) 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 Plaintiff’s Motion 6 Plaintiff contends permitting him to file a fourth amended complaint no longer presents “a 7 risk to delaying the discovery schedule” after the Court “approved the defendant’s motion to 8 postpone discovery until Nov 2025 (1 year).” (Doc. 87 at 1.) Plaintiff further asserts there are no 9 unrelated claims. (Id.) Plaintiff states he missed the August 9, 2024, deadline because he 10 “underwent hysterectomy in July of 2024” and “chest reconstruction surgery September 12, 11 2024.” (Id. at 1-2.) Next, Plaintiff asserts he does not seek to add any defendants. (Id. at 2.) 12 Plaintiff contends that despite Defendants’ assertions to the contrary, he has not “had numerous 13 opportunities to amend his complaint.” (Id.) Plaintiff maintains his injuries “are on-going” and 14 provides an example: during a December 20, 2024, eleven-hour transport, Plaintiff was given 15 three “peanut butter lunches” and a single bottle of water despite being allergic to peanuts. (Id.) 16 Plaintiff states this “happens every transport despite [his] repeatedly notifying transport” of the 17 documented allergy. (Id.) Plaintiff also states his surgeon “had to change the donor site for 18 Plaintiff’s phalloplasty procedure.” In conclusion, Plaintiff asks the Court to file the fourth 19 amended complaint “filed September 16, 2024.” (Id.) 20 Defendants’ Opposition 21 Defendants “interpret Plaintiff’s motion as a request for relief from an order pursuant to 22 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b).” (Doc. 89 at 1.) Defendants contend Plaintiff’s motion 23 must be denied because he failed to address five grounds upon which this Court’s prior denial 24 order was based. (Id. at 1-2.) Thus, they assert, Plaintiff has failed to submit “any reason that 25 justifies the Court changing its [previous] order.” (Id. at 2.) Finally, Defendants maintain that 26 whether the motion seeks relief from the prior order or is considered a “new motion to file a 27 Fourth Amended complaint, it should be denied.” (Id.) 1 Analysis 2 The undersigned does not construe Plaintiff’s motion to arise under Rule 60(b) of the 3 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2 Nevertheless, for all the reasons stated in the Court’s October 4 18, 2024, order, Plaintiff’s renewed motion to file a fourth amended complaint will be denied. 5 (See Doc. 79 at 9-11.) 6 The Court will not repeat Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure here. (See Doc. 7 79 at 8-9.) To the extent Plaintiff’s instant motion offers new bases upon which to permit him 8 leave to file a fourth amended complaint, they are unpersuasive. 9 First, the Court’s December 6, 2024, order granting Defendants’ motion to modify the 10 Discovery and Scheduling Order did not extend the deadline for filing an amended pleading; the 11 order modified only the deadlines for the completion of discovery and the filing of dispositive 12 motions. (See Doc. 86 at 3.) Stated another way, that order did not reset the deadline to amend 13 pleadings—the deadline remained August 9, 2024, well before the instant motion seeking leave to 14 file an amended complaint was filed. 15 Second, the Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s assertion that his proposed fourth amended 16 complaint does not include unrelated claims. Plaintiff’s own example of a purported “ongoing 17 claim” instead concerns what appears to be an Eighth Amendment claim involving deliberate 18 indifference to Plaintiff’s dietary restriction involving a peanut allergy. Such claims are indeed 19 unrelated to the claims in this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20; George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th 20 Cir. 2007); see, e.g., Lawrie v. Pfeiffer, No. 1:21-cv-00724 KES GSA (PC), 2024 WL 4495460, 21 at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2024) (denying leave to amend to include unrelated claims); Williams 22 v. Aceves, No. 2:21-cv-00921-DAD-KJN (PC), 2023 WL 3570468, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 18, 23 2023) (denying leave to amend where plaintiff’s motion was filed after the deadline for doing so 24 had passed and involved “new (and unrelated)” claims). Additionally, such claims would appear 25 to involve different defendants. Plaintiff does not identify any specific individual involved other 26 than a vague reference to having “notified transport” on multiple occasions. Nevertheless, the 27 2 Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerns the grounds for seeking relief from a final judgment, 1 | Court finds it unlikely that the individuals who allegedly ignored Plaintiff's dietary restriction 2 | involving a peanut allergy include named Defendants Taylor, Mitchell, Neumann, Buzzini, 3 | Chaiken, or Macomber. See e.g., Womack v. Windsor, No. 2:15-cv-0533 KJN P, 2016 WL 4 | 3217923, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. June 2016) (denying leave to amend where plaintiff again sought to 5 | raise unrelated claims against new defendants). In short, any claim or claims involving deliberate 6 | indifference to a dietary restriction related to Plaintiffs peanut allergies are not related or 7 | “ongoing” to any claims in this action and involve additional defendants. 8 Third, Plaintiff again seeks to file the fourth amended complaint he lodged with this Court 9 | on September 16, 2024, but ignores the numerous deficiencies identified in the Court’s October 10 | 18, 2024, order. Even were the Court persuaded by Plaintiff's instant motion, the fourth amended 11 | complaint lodged on September 16, 2024, remains deficient and improperly pled. 12 Finally, to the extent Plaintiff contends he has not had numerous or sufficient 13 | opportunities to amend his complaint, the Court disagrees. During screening, Plaintiff was 14 | afforded three opportunities to file an amended complaint. (See Doc. 13 at 8-9, Doc. 17 at 9-11 & 15 | Doc. 30 at 13-14.) And the Court previously considered the proposed fourth amended complaint, 16 | but denied Plaintiff leave to amend for all the reasons outlined in its October 18, 2024, order. 17 In sum, for the reasons given in the Court’s October 18, 2024, order and in this order, 18 | Plaintiffs motion will be denied. 19 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 20 Accordingly, and for the reasons given above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that 21 | Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint (Doc. 87) is DENIED. 22 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 Dated: _ January 31, 2025 | Wr bo 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28