Griffin v. Gonzales et al

Filing 62

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 52 Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/4/2016. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN,

14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:11-cv-00210-DAD-BAM-PC

v.
C/O CALDWELL,

(ECF NO. 52)

Defendant.

15
16
17

Plaintiff Matthew James Griffin is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

This matter was referred to a United States

19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Pending before the
20 Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint filed on August 24, 2015.
21 (ECF No. 52.)
22

This action is proceeding on the February 17, 2012, first amended complaint. On June

23 27, 2012, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that this action proceed
24 with Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendant Caldwell on Plaintiff’s retaliation
25 claim, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed under Rule 18 or for failure to state
26 a claim, without prejudice to bringing a new civil rights action against Defendant Dr. Moon for
27 retaliation. (ECF No. 19.)
28 recommendations.

On August 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and

(ECF Nos. 22, 23.)

On August 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed supplemental

1

1 objections. (ECF Nos. 26, 27.) On January 29, 2015, an order was entered by the District Court,
2 adopting in part the findings and recommendations, ordering this action to proceed against
3 Defendant Caldwell for retaliation, and dismissing all other claims and Defendants under Rule
4 18 or for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 36.) Defendant Caldwell was served with the first
5 amended complaint, and on July 23, 2015, filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of
6 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 46.)

On August 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed the motion to

7 amend that is now before the Court. (ECF No. 52.)

On January 15, 2016, findings and

8 recommendations were entered, recommending that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied.
9 (ECF No. 60.) On March 29, 2016, an order was entered by the District Court, adopting the
10 findings and recommendations, denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and directing Defendant
11 to file an answer within thirty days. (ECF No. 61.)
12

Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint as a matter of right pursuant to Federal Rule of

13 Civil Procedure 15(a). When Plaintiff filed his motion for leave to file an amended complaint,
14 Defendant had appeared by motion to dismiss. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15 15(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff’s right to amend the complaint once as a matter of course terminated
16 twenty-one days after the filing of a Rule 12(b) motion. Plaintiff’s motion was filed thirty-one
17 days after the filing of Defendant’s motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

Plaintiff may not,

18 therefore, amend his complaint as a matter of right.
19

Further, Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint re-states the allegations of

20 retaliation against Defendant Caldwell, and includes additional allegations regarding the
21 conditions of his confinement while he was in the management cell at CCI Tehachapi from
22 August 2008 to July 2009. In the June 27, 2012, findings and recommendation, adopted by the
23 District Court, the Court noted that Plaintiff’s claims regarding the conditions of confinement in
24 his management cell were unrelated to his retaliation claim, and in violation of Federal Rule of
25 Civil Procedure 18. (ECF No. 19 at 7:9.) In the order dismissing the original complaint and
26 granting Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint, Plaintiff was specifically cautioned that
27 he may not bring unrelated claims in an amended complaint. (ECF No. 14 at 5:2.)

Plaintiff’s

28 motion for leave to file an amended complaint should therefore be denied on this ground.

2

1

Plaintiff is advised that in the March 29, 2016, order adopting the findings and

2 recommendations, Defendant Caldwell was directed to file an answer to the first amended
3 complaint within thirty days. Once an answer has been filed, a scheduling order will be entered,
4 setting deadlines for discovery and the filing of dispositive motions. The Court will also set a
5 deadline for the filing of motions to amend the pleadings. Plaintiff is reminded that he may not
6 change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George
7 v. Smith, 507 F.3d 1467, 1474 (7th Cir. 2007).
8

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint filed on August

9 24, 2015, is DENIED.
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 4, 2016

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3