Goolsby v. Gonzales et al

Filing 16

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend 14 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/3/13. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

THOMAS GOOLSBY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
FERNANDO GONZALES, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
____________________________________)

1:11-cv-00394-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
(Doc. 14.)

17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

Thomas Goolsby ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

20

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action

21

on March 8, 2011. (Doc. 1.) The Court screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A and

22

entered an order on August 29, 2012, requiring Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify

23

the Court of his willingness to proceed on the claims found cognizable by the Court. (Doc. 12.) On

24

September 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which awaits the Court’s requisite

25

screening. (Doc. 13.)

26

///

27

///

28

1

1

On April 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, and lodged a

2

proposed Second Amended Complaint. (Docs. 14, 15.) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is now

3

before the Court.

4

II.

RULE 15(a) - LEAVE TO AMEND

5

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s

6

pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Fed. R. Civ. P.

7

15(a). Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse

8

party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Id. Here, because Plaintiff has already

9

amended the complaint once, Plaintiff requires leave of court to file a Second Amended Complaint.

10

“Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires.’”

11

AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R.

12

Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices

13

the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is

14

futile.” Id. The factor of “‘[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is insufficient to justify denying a motion to

15

amend.’” Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712,13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting

16

Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 (9th Cir. 1999)).

17

III.

DISCUSSION

18

Upon review of Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff

19

seeks to add new defendants and allegations arising from incidents that occurred after this case was filed

20

on March 8, 2011, at the California Correctional Institution (CCI) in Tehachapi, California, and Pelican

21

Bay State Prison (PBSP) in Crescent City, California.

22

A.

23

With respect to Plaintiff’s new defendants from PBSP and allegations arising out of PBSP, venue

24

is improper in this Court. The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on

25

diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all

26

defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or

27

omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the

28

2

Claims Arising at Pelican Bay State Prison (PVSP)

1

action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in

2

which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). None of the PBSP defendants named

3

in the proposed Second Amended Complaint reside in this district. The PBSP claims arose at PBSP in

4

Crescent City, California, which is located in the Northern District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff=s

5

PBSP claims are properly brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

6

California, not here at this Court in the Eastern District of California. It would be futile for Plaintiff to

7

bring claims arising out of PBSP at this Court, because venue is improper at this Court.

8
9

B.

Claims Arising from After-Occurring Events at California Correctional Institution
(CCI)

10

With respect to Plaintiff’s claims arising from events occurring at CCI after this case was filed

11

on March 8, 2011, these are after-occurring claims that are properly brought in a supplemental

12

complaint. A supplemental complaint adds allegations to the complaint of events occurring after the

13

original complaint was filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Under Rule 15(d), the court may, on just terms,

14

permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that

15

happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented. Id. A party may only file a supplemental

16

complaint with leave of court. Id. When considering whether to allow a supplemental complaint, the

17

Court considers factors such as whether allowing supplementation would serve the interests of judicial

18

economy; whether there is evidence of delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant;

19

whether amendment would impose undue prejudice upon the opposing party; and whether amendment

20

would be futile. See San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. United States Department of the

21

Interior, 236 F.R.D. 491, 497 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1988),

22

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), and Planned Parenthood of S. Ariz. v. Neely, 130 F.3d 400 (9th

23

Cir. 1997)).

24

Plaintiff’s after-occurring claims at CCI are largely unrelated to his claims arising from events

25

before March 8, 2011, and therefore in violation of Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

26

“The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a) ‘A party asserting a claim to relief as an

27

original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as

28

3

1

alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the party has against an opposing

2

party.’ Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not

3

be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different defendants

4

belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant]

5

suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees-for the Prison Litigation

6

Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without

7

prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.

8

2007).

9

Plaintiff’s earlier claims arise from allegations that Plaintiff was wrongly detained for an

10

extended time in the Security Housing Unit at CCI by defendants Gonzales and Steadman, out of

11

retaliation for Plaintiff filing prison grievances and court cases against prison officials. Plaintiff’s after-

12

occurring claims at CCI arise from allegations that defendants other than Gonzales and Steadman refused

13

to facilitate court calls, transferred Plaintiff to PBSP, confiscated Plaintiff’s personal property, refused

14

to allow Plaintiff to correspond with his co-plaintiffs, and refused to process Plaintiff’s legal documents.

15

Plaintiff’s after-occurring claims at CCI are unrelated to his earlier claims under Rule 18(a) because they

16

do not concern the same defendants or events. The Court finds it would be futile to allow Plaintiff to

17

supplement the complaint in this action with unrelated claims. Therefore, Plaintiff shall not be permitted

18

to supplement the complaint with the after-occurring claims in the proposed Second Amended

19

Complaint.

20

IV.

CONCLUSION

21

Because the Court lacks venue to hear Plaintiff’s claims arising at Pelican Bay State Prison, and

22

Plaintiff has been denied leave to supplement the complaint with claims arising from after-occurring

23

events, the Court finds that it would be futile to allow Plaintiff to file the proposed Second Amended

24

Complaint lodged on April 1, 2013.

25

Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

26

1.

27
28

Plaintiff’s motion to amend, filed on April 1, 2013, is DENIED; and

///
4

1

2.

2

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed on September 17, 2012, shall be screened by
the Court in due time.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated:
6i0kij

April 3, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5