1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *
4 NATHANIEL WILLIAMS, Case No. 3:22-CV-00264-CLB
5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 6 v. DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 7 TIM GARRETT, et. al., [ECF No. 15, 33] 8 Defendants.
9 Before the Court is Plaintiff Nathaniel Williams’s (“Williams”) motion for leave to file 10 a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 33.) No opposition was filed. Also pending before 11 the Court is Williams’s motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 15.) Defendants Renee 12 Baker (“Baker”), D. Bequette (“Bequette”), Tara Carpenter (“Carpenter”), Tim Garrett 13 (“Garrett”), and Kara LeGrand (“LeGrand”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) 14 responded, (ECF No. 19), and Williams replied, (ECF No. 20). For the reasons stated 15 below, the Court grants Williams’s motion to file a second amended complaint, (ECF No. 16 33), and denies as moot Williams’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 15). 17 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 18 Williams is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections 19 (“NDOC”) and is currently housed at the Stewart Conservation Camp. Williams initiated 20 this action on June 13, 2022, by filing a civil rights complaint for events that occurred at 21 the Northern Nevada Correctional Center (“NNCC”). (ECF No. 1.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915A, the District Court screened Williams’s first amended complaint and allowed him 23 to proceed on the following claims: (1) a Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy claim 24 against Defendants1; (2) a First Amendment mishandling of outgoing mail claim against 25 Defendants; and (3) an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to safety claim against 26
1 Williams also named N. Gallagher as a Defendant, (ECF No. 8), however this 27 Defendant has not been served and a notice regarding intention to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. 4(m) was filed on July 5, 2023. (ECF No. 32.) Additionally, Williams 1 Defendants. (ECF No. 7.) 2 The District Court also dismissed Defendants State of Nevada and Ward and state- 3 law tort claims were dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. (Id.) 4 Williams filed a motion for reconsideration of the screening order based on the dismissal 5 of Defendant Ward. (ECF No. 15.) 6 On July 13, 2023, Williams filed the instant motion to file a second amended 7 complaint, along with his proposed amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 33, 34.) No opposition 8 was filed. 9 II. LEGAL STANDARD 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) instructs that “[t]he court should freely 11 give[] leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires.” The Ninth Circuit has made 12 clear Rule 15(a) permits liberal application. Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. 13 Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013). Under Rule 15(a), courts consider 14 various factors, including: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing 15 party; (4) the futility of the amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously 16 amended his complaint. Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 17 2014). The factors do not weigh equally; rather, prejudice receives the greatest weight. 18 Brown v. Stored Value Cards, Inc., 953 F.3d 567, 574 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Eminence 19 Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)). 20 Defendants bear the burden of establishing prejudice, and absent its presence or 21 a “strong showing” under the other factors, there is a presumption in favor of permitting 22 amendment. Eminence Cap., LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. 23 Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186-87 (9th Cir. 1987)). When considering prejudice, the court 24 may weigh against the movant the amended pleading’s great alteration of the litigation’s 25 nature that requires the opposing party to defend against “different legal theories and . . . 26 different facts.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 953 (9th 27 Cir. 2006) (internal quotation omitted). Alone, such alteration is not fatal. Morongo Band 1 By contrast, futility “alone can justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend.” 2 Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 3 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995)). Futility arises when the amendment is legally insufficient, 4 Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 656 (9th Cir. 2017), or where the amended 5 complaint would be subject to dismissal, such as when it violates the statute of limitations. 6 Platt Elec. Supply, Inc. v. EOFF Elec., Inc., 522 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2008). 7 III. DISCUSSION 8 Williams seeks to amend his complaint to clarify his claims and remove Defendant 9 Gallagher, and Williams asserts that the proposed amendment is made in good faith. 10 (ECF Nos. 33, 34.) Specifically, Williams asserts the following claims2: (1) a Fourteenth 11 Amendment right to privacy claim against LeGrand, Garrett, Carpenter, Bequette, and 12 Baker; (2) a First Amendment mishandling of outgoing mail claim against LeGrand, 13 Garrett, Carpenter, Bequette, and Baker; and (3) an Eighth Amendment deliberate 14 indifference to safety claim against LeGrand, Garrett, Carpenter, Bequette, and Baker. 15 (ECF No. 34.) 16 The Court finds that the motion to amend should be granted, as the above factors 17 discussed in Desertrain weigh in Williams’s favor. First, rather than bad faith, the record 18 demonstrates that Williams is acting in good faith to amend his complaint to clarify his 19 claims related to the action already before the Court. Second, Williams timely filed his 20 amended pleading and thus did not delay in seeking amendment. 21 Third, Defendants are not prejudiced by the amendment, as it merely seeks to add 22 additional allegations to claims already asserted against named Defendants, as well as 23 remove a defendant. Thus, the Court does not find that the amended complaint greatly 24 alters the litigation’s nature or requires an entirely new course of defense. Morongo Band 25 2 While the complaint lists Williams’s Claim 1 as a Fourteenth Amendment “right to 26 informational privacy violated by unconstitutional policy”, and his Claim 2 as a First Amendment “right to confidential attorney correspondences/privileged correspondence”, 27 the Court finds that these claims are properly a Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy claim and a First Amendment mishandling of outgoing mail claim and names them 1 of Mission Indians, 893 F.2d at 1079. Amendment is not futile, as the proposed amended 2 complaint states colorable Fourteenth Amendment, First Amendment, and Eighth 3 Amendment claims. (ECF No. 34.) Finally, this is Williams’s second amended pleading, 4 thus this factor weighs in his favor.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *
4 NATHANIEL WILLIAMS, Case No. 3:22-CV-00264-CLB
5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 6 v. DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 7 TIM GARRETT, et. al., [ECF No. 15, 33] 8 Defendants.
9 Before the Court is Plaintiff Nathaniel Williams’s (“Williams”) motion for leave to file 10 a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 33.) No opposition was filed. Also pending before 11 the Court is Williams’s motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 15.) Defendants Renee 12 Baker (“Baker”), D. Bequette (“Bequette”), Tara Carpenter (“Carpenter”), Tim Garrett 13 (“Garrett”), and Kara LeGrand (“LeGrand”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) 14 responded, (ECF No. 19), and Williams replied, (ECF No. 20). For the reasons stated 15 below, the Court grants Williams’s motion to file a second amended complaint, (ECF No. 16 33), and denies as moot Williams’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 15). 17 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 18 Williams is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections 19 (“NDOC”) and is currently housed at the Stewart Conservation Camp. Williams initiated 20 this action on June 13, 2022, by filing a civil rights complaint for events that occurred at 21 the Northern Nevada Correctional Center (“NNCC”). (ECF No. 1.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915A, the District Court screened Williams’s first amended complaint and allowed him 23 to proceed on the following claims: (1) a Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy claim 24 against Defendants1; (2) a First Amendment mishandling of outgoing mail claim against 25 Defendants; and (3) an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to safety claim against 26
1 Williams also named N. Gallagher as a Defendant, (ECF No. 8), however this 27 Defendant has not been served and a notice regarding intention to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. 4(m) was filed on July 5, 2023. (ECF No. 32.) Additionally, Williams 1 Defendants. (ECF No. 7.) 2 The District Court also dismissed Defendants State of Nevada and Ward and state- 3 law tort claims were dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. (Id.) 4 Williams filed a motion for reconsideration of the screening order based on the dismissal 5 of Defendant Ward. (ECF No. 15.) 6 On July 13, 2023, Williams filed the instant motion to file a second amended 7 complaint, along with his proposed amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 33, 34.) No opposition 8 was filed. 9 II. LEGAL STANDARD 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) instructs that “[t]he court should freely 11 give[] leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires.” The Ninth Circuit has made 12 clear Rule 15(a) permits liberal application. Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. 13 Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013). Under Rule 15(a), courts consider 14 various factors, including: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing 15 party; (4) the futility of the amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously 16 amended his complaint. Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 17 2014). The factors do not weigh equally; rather, prejudice receives the greatest weight. 18 Brown v. Stored Value Cards, Inc., 953 F.3d 567, 574 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Eminence 19 Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)). 20 Defendants bear the burden of establishing prejudice, and absent its presence or 21 a “strong showing” under the other factors, there is a presumption in favor of permitting 22 amendment. Eminence Cap., LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. 23 Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186-87 (9th Cir. 1987)). When considering prejudice, the court 24 may weigh against the movant the amended pleading’s great alteration of the litigation’s 25 nature that requires the opposing party to defend against “different legal theories and . . . 26 different facts.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 953 (9th 27 Cir. 2006) (internal quotation omitted). Alone, such alteration is not fatal. Morongo Band 1 By contrast, futility “alone can justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend.” 2 Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 3 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995)). Futility arises when the amendment is legally insufficient, 4 Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 656 (9th Cir. 2017), or where the amended 5 complaint would be subject to dismissal, such as when it violates the statute of limitations. 6 Platt Elec. Supply, Inc. v. EOFF Elec., Inc., 522 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2008). 7 III. DISCUSSION 8 Williams seeks to amend his complaint to clarify his claims and remove Defendant 9 Gallagher, and Williams asserts that the proposed amendment is made in good faith. 10 (ECF Nos. 33, 34.) Specifically, Williams asserts the following claims2: (1) a Fourteenth 11 Amendment right to privacy claim against LeGrand, Garrett, Carpenter, Bequette, and 12 Baker; (2) a First Amendment mishandling of outgoing mail claim against LeGrand, 13 Garrett, Carpenter, Bequette, and Baker; and (3) an Eighth Amendment deliberate 14 indifference to safety claim against LeGrand, Garrett, Carpenter, Bequette, and Baker. 15 (ECF No. 34.) 16 The Court finds that the motion to amend should be granted, as the above factors 17 discussed in Desertrain weigh in Williams’s favor. First, rather than bad faith, the record 18 demonstrates that Williams is acting in good faith to amend his complaint to clarify his 19 claims related to the action already before the Court. Second, Williams timely filed his 20 amended pleading and thus did not delay in seeking amendment. 21 Third, Defendants are not prejudiced by the amendment, as it merely seeks to add 22 additional allegations to claims already asserted against named Defendants, as well as 23 remove a defendant. Thus, the Court does not find that the amended complaint greatly 24 alters the litigation’s nature or requires an entirely new course of defense. Morongo Band 25 2 While the complaint lists Williams’s Claim 1 as a Fourteenth Amendment “right to 26 informational privacy violated by unconstitutional policy”, and his Claim 2 as a First Amendment “right to confidential attorney correspondences/privileged correspondence”, 27 the Court finds that these claims are properly a Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy claim and a First Amendment mishandling of outgoing mail claim and names them 1 of Mission Indians, 893 F.2d at 1079. Amendment is not futile, as the proposed amended 2 complaint states colorable Fourteenth Amendment, First Amendment, and Eighth 3 Amendment claims. (ECF No. 34.) Finally, this is Williams’s second amended pleading, 4 thus this factor weighs in his favor. In sum, the above Desertrain factors each weigh in 5 Williams’s favor, and, therefore, the Court concludes that amendment is proper. 6 Additionally, pursuant to LR 7-2(d), the failure of an opposing party to file points 7 and authorities in response to any motion constitutes a consent to the granting of the 8 motion. For these reasons, Williams’s motion to amend is granted. Because many of the 9 allegations in the second amended complaint are identical to those in the first amended 10 complaint, (Compare ECF No. 8, with ECF No. 34), the Court adopts and incorporates 11 the analysis from the original screening order, (ECF No. 7), into this Order. 12 Finally, because Williams’s second amended complaint no longer names Maria 13 Ward as a defendant, his motion for reconsideration based on the dismissal of Ward, 14 (ECF No. 15), is denied as moot. 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 For the reasons discussed above, IT IS ORDERED that Williams’s motion to file a 17 second amended complaint, (ECF No. 33), is GRANTED. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the second amended complaint, (ECF No. 34), is 19 now the operative complaint in this case and the Clerk is directed to correct the docket to 20 show that the “Proposed Amended Complaint” is the “Second Amended Complaint”. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the second amended complaint shall PROCEED 22 with: 23 • a Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy claim against LeGrand, 24 Garrett, Carpenter, Bequette, and Baker; • a First Amendment mishandling of outgoing mail claim against LeGrand, 25 Garrett, Carpenter, Bequette, and Baker; and, 26 • an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to safety claim against 27 LeGrand, Garrett, Carpenter, Bequette, and Baker. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant N. Gallagher is dismissed from this 2| action. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Williams’s motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 4| 15), is DENIED as moot. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file and serve an answer or g | other response to the second amended complaint within 60 days from the date of this order. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. g| DATED: August 3, 2023. .
10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 gq