Vincent DeLeon v. Phillips, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 12, 2026
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00234
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 VINCENT DELEON, 1:24-cv-00234-KES-EPG (PC) 10 11 Plaintiff, F R I E N C D O I M NG M S E A N N D D IN R G E P C L O A M IN M T E I N FF D ’ A S T M IO O N TI S O N 12 v. F C O O R M L P E L A A V IN E T T 1 O B E F I D L E E N A IE N D A MENDED 13 PHILLIPS, et al., (ECF No. 56) 14 Defendant. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 15 THIRTY (30) DAYS

16 Plaintiff Vincent DeLeon is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 17 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint 18 commencing this action on February 26, 2024. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleged excessive use of 19 force at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (CSATF). 20 Following screening of Plaintiff’s original complaint and filing of a first amended 21 complaint, Plaintiff’s case now proceeds on against Defendant Steven Santiago, a correctional 22 officer at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, for excessive force in violation of the 23 Eighth Amendment. (ECF Nos. 11, 14). The deadline to complete non-expert discovery is 24 currently March 18, 2026. 25 \\\ 26

27 1 Plaintiff’s motion asks for leave to file a “Third Amended Complaint.” However, as the operative 28 complaint in this action is the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11), an amended complaint would be the Second Amended Complaint. 1 On February 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a further amended 2 complaint and lodged the proposed amended complaint with the Court. (ECF Nos. 56 and 57). 3 Plaintiff seeks to add previously dismissed Defendant Warden Bryan Phillips, as well as eight 4 additional defendants: Correctional Officer N. Bonilla, Correctional Officer I. Rodriguez, 5 Correctional Lieutenant J. Ervin, Correctional Captain J. Sherman, S. Rodriguez, Correctional 6 Sergeant J. Herrmann, Correctional Lieutenant J. Barrios, and CDCR. Plaintiff also seeks to 7 add twelve additional claims for various violations. 8 For the following reasons, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file 9 an amended complaint (ECF No. 56) be DENIED. 10 I. BACKGROUND 11 A. Plaintiff’s Initial Complaint 12 Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on February 26, 2024. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s 13 complaint named as Defendants Bryan Phillips, Warden of CSATF; J. Ervin, D Yard 14 Lieutenant at CSATF; J. Sherman, D Yard Captain at CSATF; S. Santiago, Gym Officer at 15 CSATF. (ECF No. 1 at 3). Plaintiff’s complaint asserted an excessive force claim related to an 16 incident on July 20, 2023. Plaintiff alleged that S. Santiago came to Plaintiff’s cell door, 17 kicked it, and told Plaintiff to get up. Santiago had Plaintiff “strip out” and zip cuffed his hands 18 behind his back before his cell door was opened. Plaintiff turned around to be escorted out 19 backwards. Next thing Plaintiff knew, he was being lifted off the ground and since his hands 20 were cuffed behind his back, his head was slammed onto his bottom bunk, and he lost 21 consciousness. 22 On April 19, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that while the 23 allegations in the complaint appeared to describe an incident of excessive force, it was not clear 24 from the complaint who used force against him. Plaintiff listed several officers and the Warden 25 of CSATF as defendants but did not describe what any of them did in his description of the 26 event. (ECF No. 10). 27 As to his claim of Supervisor Liability against Warden Phillips, the Court’s screening 28 order explained, “Plaintiff fails to state a claim for supervisory liability against Warden Philips. 1 Plaintiff makes no allegation that the Warden was personally involved in the assault. Nor does 2 Plaintiff allege that Warden Phillips instituted a policy that caused the use of force, that he 3 knew of the alleged violation but failed to prevent it, or that he failed to train or supervise 4 subordinates in a way that led to the alleged violation.” (Id. at 6). 5 The Court provided Plaintiff with leave to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 1). 6 B. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 7 Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on May 10, 2024. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff’s 8 First Amended Complaint generally alleged that Defendant Steven Santiago, a correctional 9 officer, slammed Plaintiff’s head into a bunk while Plaintiff was handcuffed with his hands 10 behind his back. It also alleged that the Warden did not take any action against Santiago but 11 instead gave him three months paid vacation. (Id. at 2). 12 The Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on May 21, 2024, and issued 13 Findings and Recommendations that the Action Proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 14 Excessive Force Claim Against Defendant S. Santiago, and that All Other Claims and 15 Defendants Be Dismissed. (ECF No. 11). The Court recommended that the action proceed 16 only against Defendant Santiago on a claim of excessive force in violation of the Eighth 17 Amendment. The Court found that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint failed to state a claim 18 for supervisory liability against Warden Philips because it did not allege that the Warden was 19 personally involved in the assault, instituted a policy that caused the use of force, knew of the 20 alleged violation but failed to prevent it, or failed to train or supervise subordinates in a way 21 that led to the alleged violation. 22 On October 15, 2024, the presiding District Judge, Kirk E. Sherriff, adopted the 23 Findings and Recommendations and ordered that “[t]his case shall PROCEED on plaintiff’s 24 claim of excessive force against defendant Steven Santiago, a correctional officer at CSATF;” 25 and “[a]ll other claims and defendants are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which 26 relief may be granted.” (ECF No. 14). 27 C. Case Proceeds Against Defendant Santiago 28 The case has proceeded against Defendant Santiago since that time. Defendant 1 Santiago was served with the first amended complaint. (ECF No. 15, 16). The parties 2 participated in a settlement conference on May 23, 2025. (ECF No. 36). The Court opened 3 discovery on July 21, 2025. (ECF No. 45). According to the current schedule, non-expert 4 discovery is set to close on March 18, 2026. (ECF No. 46). 5 II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 6 On February 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a[n] amended complaint 7 and lodged the proposed amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 56, 57). Plaintiff seeks leave to add 8 nine new defendants, reinstate Warden Bryan Philips, and assert twelve new causes of action. 9 Plaintiff’s motion argues that documents produced in discovery have revealed: (1) identities of rules of additional correctional officers who filed false reports regarding 10 the July 20, 2023 use of force incident; (2) the identities of supervisory personnel 11 involved in the investigation and disciplinary proceedings who ratified Defendant Santiago’s misconduct; (3) evidence of a coordinated conspiracy to cover up the 12 excessive force through false official reports; and (4) evidence that Defendant Santiago has an extensive history of misconduct, including evidence tampering and filing false 13 reports—that was known to his supervisors, who failed to train, supervise, or discipline 14 him, and (5) evidence that Warden Bryan Philips, as the final reviewing authority, had personal knowledge of Santiago’s prior misconduct and ratified the constitutional 15 violations against Plaintiff. 16 (ECF No. 56 at 2). 17 Specifically, Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint alleges that Correctional Officers 18 I. Salcedo, N. Bonilla, and I. Rodriguez, filed false official reports regarding the July 20, 2023, 19 incident that corroborated Defendant Santiago's false narrative and helped cover up the 20 excessive force. Sergeant I. Salcedo was the immediate supervisor present during the incident 21 who also filed a false report. Lieutenant J. Ervin was the incident Commander and was 22 responsible for investigating both the use of force and the retaliatory Rules Violation Report 23 (“RVR”) for Defendant. Captain J. Sherman, the Facility D Commander, S. Rodriguez, 24 Sergeant J. Herrmann, and Lieutenant J. Barrios, were involved in the adjudication of the RVR 25 investigation and ratified Defendant Santiago's misconduct. Defendant Santiago had an 26 extensive history of misconduct, including prior findings that “he tampered with evidence to 27 cause a false positive urine analysis test result in order to maliciously implicate an inmate.” 28 Sergeant J. Hermann previously "vouched" for Santiago's credibility in a prior investigation 1 involving Santiago's misconduct, resulting in Herrman being demoted from his supervisor role. 2 There was a coordinated conspiracy among the Defendants to justify the excessive force 3 through false reports and to retaliate against Plaintiff through a malicious and false RVR. 4 Warden Phillips ratified the constitutional violations by approving the biased investigation and 5 RVR adjudication despite the obvious conflicts of interest and due process violations. (Id. at 5- 6 6). 7 Based on this evidence, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint and add nine new 8 defendants: Correctional Officer N. Bonilla, Correctional Officer I. Rodriguez, Correctional 9 Lieutenant J. Ervin, Correctional Captain J. Sherman, S. Rodriguez, Correctional Sergeant J. 10 Herrmann, Correctional Lieutenant J. Barrios, and CDCR; and reinstate the previously 11 dismissed defendant, Warden Philips. 12 Plaintiff also seeks to add twelve additional claims including Failure to Intervene in 13 violation of the Eighth Amendment; Supervisory Liability for Failure to Train, Supervise, 14 Discipline; Fabrication of Evidence/Filing False Reports; Retaliation in violation of the First 15 Amendment, Due Process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; Civil Rights Conspiracy; 16 Failure to Prevent Conspiracy; Violation of the Tome Bane Civils Rights Act; Battery; 17 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Defamation; Vicarious Liability/Respondeat 18 Superior. (ECF No. 57 at 12-20).2 19 III. LEGAL STANDARDS 20 Under Rule 15(a), a party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course within 21 twenty-one days of service, or if the pleading is one to which a response is required, twenty-one 22 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). “In all 23 other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or 24 the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 25 Granting or denying leave to amend is in the discretion of the Court. Swanson v. United 26 States Forest Service, 87 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996). “In exercising this discretion, a court 27

28 2 Defendant did respond to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, and the time to do so has passed. 1 must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits, rather 2 than on the pleadings or technicalities.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 3 1981). “Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to 4 amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of the amendment, and 5 whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Desertrain v. City of Los 6 Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted); see also Eminence Cap., LLC 7 v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Prejudice is the ‘touchstone of the 8 inquiry under rule 15(a).’”) (citation omitted). 9 “Although leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires,’ Fed.R.Civ.P. 10 15(a), it ‘is not to be granted automatically.’” Zivkovic v. S. California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 11 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). “Leave to amend may be denied if the proposed 12 amendment is futile or would be subject to dismissal.” Wheeler v. City of Santa Clara, 894 13 F.3d 1046, 1059 (9th Cir. 2018). 14 “[L]ate amendments to assert new theories are not reviewed favorably when the facts 15 and the theory have been known to the party seeking amendment since the inception of the 16 cause of action.” Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Sw. Marine, 194 F.3d 1009, 1016–17 (9th Cir. 1999). 17 “Although delay is not a dispositive factor in the amendment analysis, it is relevant, especially 18 when no reason is given for the delay.” Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Sols., Inc., 194 19 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted); See also Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 20 794, 799 (9th Cir. 1991) (an eight-month delay from time of obtaining facts until filing 21 amended complaint is unreasonable) (citing Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1388 22 (9th Cir. 1990)). 23 IV. ANALYSIS 24 The Court recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a further amended 25 complaint. 26 The Court has examined the factors relevant to whether to grant leave to amend: bad 27 faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of the amendment, and whether the 28 plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. 1 As an initial matter, the Court finds no evidence of bad faith by the Plaintiff. 2 However, the Court does find undue delay. This case has been pending for more than 3 two years. Plaintiff has already amended his complaint, and the case has proceeded through 4 discovery. Plaintiff’s motion argues that he did not unduly delay in bringing these claims 5 because he learned of the underlying facts in newly produced discovery. However, most of the 6 newly asserted claims concern the prison’s filing of an RVR against Plaintiff following the 7 incident, accusing Plaintiff of “Willfully Resisting a Peace Officer in the Performance of 8 Duties.” (ECF No. 57, at p. 8). Plaintiff claims that this RVR was false and “was filed to 9 justify the unjustified use of force and to retaliation against Plaintiff for being the victim of 10 Santiago’s assault.” (ECF No. 57, at p. 8). 11 Plaintiff does not allege when this RVR was filed against him, although it is likely that 12 it was filed shortly after underlying incident on January 20, 2023. In any event, Plaintiff had 13 personal knowledge about this RVR because he participated in the disciplinary proceedings. 14 Thus, Defendants’ recent production of discovery is not a valid excuse for failing to amend his 15 complaint at an earlier time. 16 The Court also finds that further amendment would prejudice the opposing party, 17 Defendant Santiago. If Plaintiff is permitted to file a further amended complaint, the Court 18 would need to screen the second amended complaint, issue Findings and Recommendations 19 consistent with its screening order, serve any new defendants, and allow those new defendants 20 to participate in discovery. This would result in substantial delay to this case against Defendant 21 Santiago. 22 Turning to futility of the amendment, while the Court has not conducted a full screening 23 of the proposed amended complaint, it notes that several claims are futile. For example, the 24 CDCR is not a proper defendant under 1983. Brown v. California Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 25 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The district court correctly held that the California Department of 26 Corrections and the California Board of Prison Terms were entitled to Eleventh Amendment 27 immunity.”); Est. of Sumner v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., No. 2:22-CV-01638-JAM- 28 DB, 2023 WL 3304233, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2023) (“CDCR did not waive, nor has 1 Congress abrogated, its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. In turn, the Eleventh 2 Amendment unequivocally precludes Plaintiffs claims against CDCR. The Court therefore 3 finds Plaintiffs failed to state a plausible cause of action against CDCR and dismisses their 4 claims accordingly.”). Additionally, Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to include facts 5 supporting his allegations that certain Supervisory Defendants—Lt. Ervin, Capt. Sherman, Sgt. 6 Salcedo, Sgt. Herrmann, and Lt. Barrios—had knowledge of Defendant Santiago’s propensity 7 for misconduct and failed to act. (ECF No. 57 at 14). See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 8 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A defendant may be held liable as a supervisor under § 1983 ‘if there exists 9 either (1) his or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient 10 causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional 11 violation.’”). Plaintiff’s amended complaint also fails to state a First Amendment retaliation 12 claim because it does not allege that the RVR was filed in retaliation for Plaintiff exercising 13 constitutionally protected conduct. See Brodheim v. Cry 584 F.3d 1262, 1271 (9th Cir. 2009) 14 (“To prevail on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show that his protected conduct was the 15 substantial or motivating factor behind the defendant's conduct.”) (internal quotations omitted). 16 Instead, Plaintiff alleges that the RVR was filed “to provide a consistent false narrative that 17 would justify the excessive force and shield Santiago from accountability.” (ECF No. 57, at p. 18 8). Plaintiff’s state law claims are also subject to dismissal because Plaintiff’s amended 19 complaint fails to allege compliance with California’s Government Claims Act,3 which 20 requires that a claim against the State4 or its employees “relating to a cause of action for death 21 or for injury to person” be presented to the California Victim Compensation and Government 22 Claims Board, formerly known as the State Board of Control, no more than six months after the 23 cause of action accrues. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905.2, 910, 911.2, 945.4, 950-950.2. 24 \\\ 25 3 This Act was formerly known as the California Tort Claims Act. City of Stockton v. Superior Court, 26 42 Cal. 4th 730, 741-42 (Cal. 2007) (adopting the practice of using Government Claims Act rather than 27 California Tort Claims Act). 4 “‘State’ means the State and any office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, commission or 28 agency of the State claims against which are paid by warrants drawn by the Controller.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 900.6. ] Turning to the last factor, Plaintiff has previously amended his complaint following the 2 || Court’s screening order. (ECF No. 11). 3 Thus, after consideration of the relevant factors, the Court recommends denying 4 || Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a further amended complaint. 5 ||V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 6 Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a [second] amended complaint (ECF No. 56) be 8 DENIED. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days 11 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 || objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 13 || Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any objections shall be limited to no more than 14 || fifteen pages, including exhibits. Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within 15 || fourteen days after service of the objections. 16 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 17 || result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 18 || 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 19 0 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _Mareh 12, 2026 □□□ hey — 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28