1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE WILLIAMS, CDCR #AG-2394, Case No.: 18cv1581-TWR(KSC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 O. NAVARRO; E. ESTRADA; J. MEJIA; and A. SILVA, 15 Defendants. 16 [Doc. No. 108.] 17 18 Before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended 19 Complaint. [Doc. No. 108.] In this Motion, plaintiff seeks to file a Second Amended 20 Complaint to add a fourth cause of action against a new defendant, T. Brisco. The 21 proposed cause of action against T. Brisco is for alleged deliberate indifference to serious 22 medical needs. [Doc. No. 108, at pp. 11-13.] In response to this Motion, defendants filed 23 a Statement of Non-Opposition. [Doc. No. 112.] 24 For the reasons outlined more fully below, the Court finds that plaintiff’s 25 unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint must be GRANTED. 26 [Doc. No. 108.] 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Background 2 Pursuant to the Court’s Order of March 17, 2021, plaintiff filed his First Amended 3 Complaint to replace Doe defendants with names of actual defendants learned during the 4 discovery process. [Doc. Nos. 94, 95.] Count One of the First Amended Complaint 5 (“Complaint”) alleges defendant Navarro refused to let plaintiff out of his cell to obtain 6 his “medical and mental health psych medications, [] his P.R.N. medications,” and his 7 migraine medication on February 22, 2018 during the “3 p.m. med line call.” [Doc. No. 8 95 at p. 4.] At this time, plaintiff claims he really needed his migraine medication, 9 because he had a migraine. According to the Complaint, plaintiff had multiple inmates 10 advise defendant Navarro he was requesting to be let out of his cell to obtain his 11 medications, but defendant Navarro refused, stating plaintiff “wasn’t on the list.” [Doc. 12 No. 95, at p. 4.] However, plaintiff claims he was on the list for “P.R.N.” and mandatory 13 medications at 3:00 p.m. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 4.] 14 Plaintiff also claims he kicked the door, yelled, screamed “man down,” and asked 15 to be let out of his cell, but he was ignored by defendant Navarro and the “floor staff.” 16 [Doc. No. 95, at p. 4.] Floor staff are identified in the Complaint as defendants 17 R. Rodriguez and Castro. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 4.] The Complaint alleges defendants 18 R. Rodriguez and Castro did not intervene in the situation even when plaintiff showed 19 them his nose was bleeding. Instead, they allegedly went into the office, closed the door, 20 and began laughing. Defendant Navarro then allegedly made comments over the speaker 21 telling plaintiff to stop acting like a baby or he would be written up for disciplinary 22 action. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 4.] Plaintiff allegedly became exhausted, “passed out from his 23 migraine pain,” and missed his dinner. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 4.] 24 Again at 8:00 p.m. on the same date, plaintiff was allegedly not let out of his cell 25 by defendant Navarro for the “8:00 p.m. med line” even though he was advised by 26 plaintiff, multiple inmates, and defendants R. Rodriguez and Castro, that plaintiff needed 27 his “mandatory psych medication” and some “P.R.N.s.” [Doc. No. 95, at p. 5.] 28 Defendant Navarro repeatedly yelled that plaintiff was not getting out because he was not 1 on the list. Again, R. Rodriguez and Castro did not intervene to assist plaintiff even 2 though they were notified that plaintiff needed his “mandatory psych medication” and 3 some “P.R.N.s.” [Doc. No. 95, at p. 5.] 4 Counts Two and Three of the Complaint include allegations about two similar 5 incidents on February 25, 2018 and March 19, 2018. In Count Two, the Complaint 6 alleges once again that on February 25, 2018, defendant Navarro refused to let plaintiff 7 out of his cell so that he could obtain his “psych medication,” pain medication, and 8 migraine medication. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 6.] This time, however, it was defendants 9 J. Mejia and M. Rodriguez who allegedly ignored plaintiff’s “man down” calls and failed 10 to assist plaintiff in obtaining access to his medications. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 6.] Plaintiff 11 claims he “passed out from migraine pain and exhaustion” and then missed dinner and 12 the “8 p.m. med line call.” [Doc. No. 95, at p. 6.] Around 9:00 p.m., plaintiff says he 13 woke up when defendant Mejia was doing his rounds, and he told defendant Mejia he 14 needed his “mandatory psych meds and his migraine medication.” [Doc. No. 95, at p. 6.] 15 Defendant Mejia allegedly told plaintiff it was too late and to “go to sleep it will go 16 away.” [Doc. No. 95, at p. 6.] In addition, defendant M. Rodriguez called plaintiff a “cry 17 baby” and told him to go to sleep. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 6.] 18 In Count Three, the Complaint alleges that on March 19, 2018, defendant Navarro 19 again refused to open plaintiff’s cell door so that he could obtain “mandatory scheduled 20 medication.” [Doc. No. 95, at p. 7.] From 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., plaintiff claims he 21 kicked and beat on the door, yelled in frustration, and called “man down” to attempt to 22 get help. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 7.] Defendants Mejia and Estrada then allegedly ignored 23 plaintiff’s calls of “man down” and failed to assist or intervene so that plaintiff could 24 access his medications. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 7.] Plaintiff also claims he covered his 25 window which should have “triggered an emergency response,” but plaintiff was still 26 ignored. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 7.] All the yelling and noisemaking allegedly elevated 27 plaintiff’s blood pressure, gave him a migraine headache, and “serious painful chest 28 pains.” [Doc. No. 95, at p. 7.] He yelled that he was possibly having a stroke or heart 1 attack but was still ignored. Plaintiff even put a “man down” note in front of his cell 2 door, and when defendant A. Silva completed routine nightly security checks, he read the 3 note and slid it back under the door without saying anything or checking plaintiff’s 4 welfare, which violated prison protocols. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 7.] Because he did not have 5 access to his medications, plaintiff claims he suffered all night from migraines, nose 6 bleeds, chest pains, low back pain, shoulder pain, and a “multitude of psychiatric 7 ailments,” including anxiety, depression, anger, insomnia, and suicidal thoughts. [Doc. 8 No. 95, p. 7.] 9 Discussion 10 I. Motion to Amend Standards. 1 11 Federal Rule of Civil Rule 15(a)(2) states that: “The court should freely give leave 12 [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). “Although leave to amend 13 ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires,’ Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), it ‘is not to be 14 granted automatically.’” Zivkovic v. S. California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th 15 Cir. 2002), quoting Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 21 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir.1990). 16 In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), the Supreme Court set forth factors 17 to consider in determining whether leave to amend should be granted. Id. at 182. These 18 factors include “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, 19 repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice 20 to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of 21 amendment.” Id. Here, there are no factors indicating leave to amend should not be 22 23
24 25 1 “Generally, a motion for leave to amend the pleadings is a nondispositive matter that may be ruled on by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
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 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE WILLIAMS, CDCR #AG-2394, Case No.: 18cv1581-TWR(KSC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 O. NAVARRO; E. ESTRADA; J. MEJIA; and A. SILVA, 15 Defendants. 16 [Doc. No. 108.] 17 18 Before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended 19 Complaint. [Doc. No. 108.] In this Motion, plaintiff seeks to file a Second Amended 20 Complaint to add a fourth cause of action against a new defendant, T. Brisco. The 21 proposed cause of action against T. Brisco is for alleged deliberate indifference to serious 22 medical needs. [Doc. No. 108, at pp. 11-13.] In response to this Motion, defendants filed 23 a Statement of Non-Opposition. [Doc. No. 112.] 24 For the reasons outlined more fully below, the Court finds that plaintiff’s 25 unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint must be GRANTED. 26 [Doc. No. 108.] 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Background 2 Pursuant to the Court’s Order of March 17, 2021, plaintiff filed his First Amended 3 Complaint to replace Doe defendants with names of actual defendants learned during the 4 discovery process. [Doc. Nos. 94, 95.] Count One of the First Amended Complaint 5 (“Complaint”) alleges defendant Navarro refused to let plaintiff out of his cell to obtain 6 his “medical and mental health psych medications, [] his P.R.N. medications,” and his 7 migraine medication on February 22, 2018 during the “3 p.m. med line call.” [Doc. No. 8 95 at p. 4.] At this time, plaintiff claims he really needed his migraine medication, 9 because he had a migraine. According to the Complaint, plaintiff had multiple inmates 10 advise defendant Navarro he was requesting to be let out of his cell to obtain his 11 medications, but defendant Navarro refused, stating plaintiff “wasn’t on the list.” [Doc. 12 No. 95, at p. 4.] However, plaintiff claims he was on the list for “P.R.N.” and mandatory 13 medications at 3:00 p.m. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 4.] 14 Plaintiff also claims he kicked the door, yelled, screamed “man down,” and asked 15 to be let out of his cell, but he was ignored by defendant Navarro and the “floor staff.” 16 [Doc. No. 95, at p. 4.] Floor staff are identified in the Complaint as defendants 17 R. Rodriguez and Castro. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 4.] The Complaint alleges defendants 18 R. Rodriguez and Castro did not intervene in the situation even when plaintiff showed 19 them his nose was bleeding. Instead, they allegedly went into the office, closed the door, 20 and began laughing. Defendant Navarro then allegedly made comments over the speaker 21 telling plaintiff to stop acting like a baby or he would be written up for disciplinary 22 action. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 4.] Plaintiff allegedly became exhausted, “passed out from his 23 migraine pain,” and missed his dinner. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 4.] 24 Again at 8:00 p.m. on the same date, plaintiff was allegedly not let out of his cell 25 by defendant Navarro for the “8:00 p.m. med line” even though he was advised by 26 plaintiff, multiple inmates, and defendants R. Rodriguez and Castro, that plaintiff needed 27 his “mandatory psych medication” and some “P.R.N.s.” [Doc. No. 95, at p. 5.] 28 Defendant Navarro repeatedly yelled that plaintiff was not getting out because he was not 1 on the list. Again, R. Rodriguez and Castro did not intervene to assist plaintiff even 2 though they were notified that plaintiff needed his “mandatory psych medication” and 3 some “P.R.N.s.” [Doc. No. 95, at p. 5.] 4 Counts Two and Three of the Complaint include allegations about two similar 5 incidents on February 25, 2018 and March 19, 2018. In Count Two, the Complaint 6 alleges once again that on February 25, 2018, defendant Navarro refused to let plaintiff 7 out of his cell so that he could obtain his “psych medication,” pain medication, and 8 migraine medication. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 6.] This time, however, it was defendants 9 J. Mejia and M. Rodriguez who allegedly ignored plaintiff’s “man down” calls and failed 10 to assist plaintiff in obtaining access to his medications. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 6.] Plaintiff 11 claims he “passed out from migraine pain and exhaustion” and then missed dinner and 12 the “8 p.m. med line call.” [Doc. No. 95, at p. 6.] Around 9:00 p.m., plaintiff says he 13 woke up when defendant Mejia was doing his rounds, and he told defendant Mejia he 14 needed his “mandatory psych meds and his migraine medication.” [Doc. No. 95, at p. 6.] 15 Defendant Mejia allegedly told plaintiff it was too late and to “go to sleep it will go 16 away.” [Doc. No. 95, at p. 6.] In addition, defendant M. Rodriguez called plaintiff a “cry 17 baby” and told him to go to sleep. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 6.] 18 In Count Three, the Complaint alleges that on March 19, 2018, defendant Navarro 19 again refused to open plaintiff’s cell door so that he could obtain “mandatory scheduled 20 medication.” [Doc. No. 95, at p. 7.] From 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., plaintiff claims he 21 kicked and beat on the door, yelled in frustration, and called “man down” to attempt to 22 get help. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 7.] Defendants Mejia and Estrada then allegedly ignored 23 plaintiff’s calls of “man down” and failed to assist or intervene so that plaintiff could 24 access his medications. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 7.] Plaintiff also claims he covered his 25 window which should have “triggered an emergency response,” but plaintiff was still 26 ignored. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 7.] All the yelling and noisemaking allegedly elevated 27 plaintiff’s blood pressure, gave him a migraine headache, and “serious painful chest 28 pains.” [Doc. No. 95, at p. 7.] He yelled that he was possibly having a stroke or heart 1 attack but was still ignored. Plaintiff even put a “man down” note in front of his cell 2 door, and when defendant A. Silva completed routine nightly security checks, he read the 3 note and slid it back under the door without saying anything or checking plaintiff’s 4 welfare, which violated prison protocols. [Doc. No. 95, at p. 7.] Because he did not have 5 access to his medications, plaintiff claims he suffered all night from migraines, nose 6 bleeds, chest pains, low back pain, shoulder pain, and a “multitude of psychiatric 7 ailments,” including anxiety, depression, anger, insomnia, and suicidal thoughts. [Doc. 8 No. 95, p. 7.] 9 Discussion 10 I. Motion to Amend Standards. 1 11 Federal Rule of Civil Rule 15(a)(2) states that: “The court should freely give leave 12 [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). “Although leave to amend 13 ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires,’ Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), it ‘is not to be 14 granted automatically.’” Zivkovic v. S. California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th 15 Cir. 2002), quoting Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 21 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir.1990). 16 In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), the Supreme Court set forth factors 17 to consider in determining whether leave to amend should be granted. Id. at 182. These 18 factors include “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, 19 repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice 20 to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of 21 amendment.” Id. Here, there are no factors indicating leave to amend should not be 22 23
24 25 1 “Generally, a motion for leave to amend the pleadings is a nondispositive matter that may be ruled on by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).” Morgal v. 26 Maricopa Cty. Bd. of Sup'rs, 284 F.R.D. 452, 458 (D. Ariz. 2012). A ruling on a motion 27 for leave to amend would be considered dispositive if a party is denied the opportunity to assert a new claim or defense (e.g., when the ruling is with prejudice and there is no 28 1 granted, and the current defendants do not oppose the proposed amendments to the 2 operative pleading. 3 II. Proposed Addition of New Claim and New Defendant (Count 4). 4 “A prison official's ‘deliberate indifference’ to a substantial risk of serious harm to 5 an inmate violates the Eighth Amendment.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 6 (1994). “[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for 7 denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and 8 disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of 9 facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm 10 exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837. 11 “[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an 12 inmate must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 13 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006), quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). 14 “Deliberate indifference” can be established by showing “(a) a purposeful act or failure to 15 respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the 16 indifference.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d at 1096. Standing alone, a prisoner’s allegation 17 that records were falsified is not enough to state a cognizable claim of deliberate 18 indifference to a prisoner plaintiff's serious medical needs. See, e.g., Green v. Branson, 19 108 F.3d 1296, 1304 (10th Cir. 1997). 20 Plaintiff’s proposed Count Four is a new claim for “deliberate indifference” to 21 serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against a new defendant, 22 T. Brisco, a “psych tech in charge of dispensing plaintiff’s medication.”2 [Doc. No. 108, 23
24 25 2 Previously, the Court denied plaintiff’s request to add this cause of action against T. Brisco “without prejudice.” [Doc. No. 94, at p. 10.] Plaintiff was granted 30 days 26 leave to amend the defects outlined in the Court’s March 17, 2021 Order and to file a new 27 motion for leave to amend. [Doc. No. 94, at p. 10.] In an Order filed on April 23, 2021, plaintiff was granted an extension of time to file his new motion for leave to amend. 28 1 at pp. 11-13.] In proposed Count Four, plaintiff alleges the discovery process in this case 2 revealed that T. Brisco falsified medical records by indicating plaintiff was a “no show 3 with no barriers” when his medications were dispensed on February 22, 2018, February 4 25, 2018, and March 19, 2018. [Doc. No. 108, at p. 11.] According to plaintiff, this 5 statement is false, because there was a barrier in that he was not let out of his cell on 6 these dates so that he could obtain his medications, and T. Brisco did not follow 7 established protocols when plaintiff did not show up to obtain his medications. [Doc. No. 8 108, at p. 11.] 9 Plaintiff further alleges T. Brisco acted with deliberate indifference, because she 10 has medical training and knew the risks to plaintiff’s health and safety if he was unable to 11 obtain his medications. In addition, plaintiff believes T. Brisco could hear plaintiff 12 yelling and kicking to be let out of his cell for his medications. [Doc. No. 108, at p. 12.] 13 Despite knowledge of the risks, plaintiff alleges T. Brisco failed to contact plaintiff face- 14 to-face or have him released from his cell so she could dispense his medications to him. 15 [Doc. No. 108, at pp. 11-12.] She also allegedly failed to contact appropriate supervisory 16 staff about the “actual real barriers” that prevented plaintiff from getting his medications 17 which allegedly “placed plaintiff in ongoing imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 18 [Doc. No. 108, at pp. 12-13.] 19 When liberally construed and taken as true, the proposed cause of action and the 20 allegations against T. Brisco include enough facts to state a plausible Eighth Amendment 21 claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under Section 1983. As noted 22 above, the other defendants in the case do not oppose plaintiff’s Motion seeking to add 23 this new cause of action against T. Brisco. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff’s 24 Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint must be GRANTED. 25 / / / 26 27 then accepted for filing even though it arrived a few days after the new deadline. [Doc. 28 1 Conclusion 2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is 4 GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the proposed Second Amended 5 Complaint, which was submitted by plaintiff at Doc. No. 108, at pages 2-30. 6 2. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to issue a summons as to plaintiff’s 7 Second Amended Complaint and to forward it to plaintiff along with blank U.S. Marshal 8 Form 285s for each the four new defendants.3 In addition, the Clerk will provide plaintiff 9 with certified copies of this Order, his Second Amended Complaint, and the summons so 10 that he may serve the new defendants. Upon receipt of this “IFP Package,” plaintiff must 11 complete the USM Form 285s as completely and accurately as possible, include an 12 address where each named Defendant may be found and/or subject to service pursuant to 13 S.D. Cal. CivLR 4.1c., and return them to the United States Marshal according to the 14 instructions the Clerk provides in the letter accompanying his IFP package. 15 3. The U.S. Marshal is directed to serve a copy of the Second Amended 16 Complaint and summons upon the new defendants as directed by plaintiff on USM Form 17 285s provided to him. All costs of that service will be advanced by the United States. 18 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 25 3 New defendants R. Rodriguez, Castro, and M. Rodriguez were added when the 26 First Amended Complaint was filed on March 17, 2021 [Doc. No. 95] pursuant to the 27 Court’s Order of March 17, 2021 [Doc. No. 94, at p. 10]. As outlined above, the Court is now granting plaintiff’s request to file the Second Amended Complaint to add another 28 1 4. Once served, the new defendants must respond to plaintiff's Second 2 || Amended Complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal 3 || Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: June 25, 2021 □□ ) 6 Mlffize fa 7 Hori. Karen S. Crawford United States Magistrate Judge
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28