Huckabee v. Medical Staff at CSATF et al

Filing 192

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) 187 ; ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to File Lodged Fifth Amended Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/22/16. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY CRAIG HUCKABEE,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
MEDICAL STAFF at CSATF, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

1:09-cv-00749-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO AMEND PURSUANT TO FEDERAL
RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 15(a)(2)
(ECF No. 187)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
FILE LODGED FIFTH AMENDED
COMPLAINT

17
18
19
20
21

I.

Introduction

Plaintiff Anthony Craig Huckabee (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner, currently proceeding

22

pro se and in forma pauperis, in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff

23

initiated this action on April 28, 2009. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference to

24
25

serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
II.

Procedural Background

26
27
28

Given the lengthy procedural history of this case, the Court will recount only that which is
relevant to the instant motion. On May 26, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s third amended
1

1

complaint. The Court directed Plaintiff to either file a fourth amended complaint or notify the

2

Court that he did not wish to file an amended complaint and he was willing to proceed only on the

3

claims found cognizable against Defendants McGuinness, Jimenez, and Jeffreys for deliberate

4
indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 174.)
5
On July 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed his fourth amended complaint. (ECF No. 183.) On July

6
7

23, 2015, the Defendants filed a request for the Court to screen Plaintiff’s fourth amended

8

complaint. (ECF No. 185.) On May 2, 2016, before the Court could screen Plaintiff’s fourth

9

amended complaint, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend pursuant to Federal Rule

10
11

of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), and lodged a fifth amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 187, 188.) As of
the date of this order, Defendants have not opposed the motion.

12
Under Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules Civil Procedure, a party may amend its pleading

13
14

once as a matter of course twenty-one days after serving, or if a response was filed, within

15

twenty-one days after service of the response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Otherwise, a party may

16

amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the opposing party, and leave shall be

17

freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and

18

leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v.

19

Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006). However, courts “need not grant leave to

20
21

amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3)

22

produces an undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id. The factor of “[u]ndue delay by

23

itself… is insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.” Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health

24

Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712-13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58

25

(9th Cir. 1999)).

26

///

27
///
28
2

1

III.

2

Plaintiff’s motion seeks to make the following amendments to his complaint: (1) expressly

3
4

Discussion

identify the Doe defendant named in the fourth amended complaint, namely Frank Williams; (2)
correct Plaintiff’s inadvertent omission of his name and the case number from the front page of

5
6
7

the fourth amended complaint; and (3) correct the omission regarding the link between Defendant
Nguyen’s actions and the harm Plaintiff claims to have suffered. (ECF No. 187.)
The Court has reviewed the proposed amended complaint and finds that leave to amend

8
9
10
11

should be granted. In considering the relevant factors, the Court finds no indication that the
amendment will result in prejudice to Defendants currently appearing in this action. Defendants,
by failing to oppose the motion, have waived any argument regarding prejudice. Moreover, the

12
13
14

proposed amendment does not change the nature of Plaintiff’s underlying action against
Defendants.

15

The Court also finds no indication that the amendment is sought in bad faith or will

16

unduly delay these proceedings. Any potential delay resulting from amendment is not attributable

17

to dilatory conduct by Plaintiff in these proceedings. The Court had yet to screen Plaintiff’s fourth

18

amended complaint when he filed the instant motion, and the Defendants have voiced no

19
objections to his motion or his proposed amended complaint.
20
Finally, Plaintiff’s proposed amendments do not appear wholly futile. Significantly, the

21
22

Court intends to screen the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court will

23

dismiss any portion of Plaintiff’s amended complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a

24

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is

25

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

26

///

27
///
28
3

1

IV.

2

Based on the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

3

Conclusion and Order

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, filed on May 2, 2016, is

4
GRANTED;
5
6

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file the Fifth Amended Complaint, lodged on
May 2, 2016 (ECF No. 188);

7
8

3. After filing, the Court will screen the Fifth Amended Complaint in due course; and

9

4. Defendants’ request for screening of Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint is DENIED

10

as moot.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

November 22, 2016

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4