Estate of Angel Ramirez et al v. Kern Valley State Prison et al

Filing 26

ORDER that Plaintiffs FILE a proposed amended complaint in support of 25 Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint. 1) On or before January 23, 2013, Plaintiffs shall file a proposed amended complaint in support of their motion to amend; 2 ) On or before January 30, 2013, the parties SHALL meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint; 3) If the parties are willing to stipulate to Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint, such a stipulation should be filed on or before February 6, 2013; 4) If the parties cannot reach agreement to stipulate to the filing of the proposed amended complaint, any opposition to the motion to amend shall be filed on or before February 6, 2013; 5) The hearing currently set for 1 /23/2013, is CONTINUED to 2/20/2013, at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 7 (SKO) before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto; 6) Plaintiffs' failure to file a proposed amended complaint on or before January 23, 2013, will result in denial of the motion to amend. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/14/2013. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
ESTATE OF ANGEL RAMIREZ, et al.,

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00453-AWI-SKO

14
15
16

Plaintiffs,

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS FILE A
PROPOSED AMENDED
COMPLAINT IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND
THE COMPLAINT

v.

17
KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al.,
18

(Doc. No. 25)
19

Defendants.

20

/

21
I.

INTRODUCTION

22
On December 26, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint to identify Doe
23
defendants. (Doc. 25.) Plaintiffs assert that, as a result of Defendants Kern Valley State Prison,
24
Kelly Harrington, and the State of California's (collectively "Defendants") initial disclosures,
25
Plaintiffs have learned the true identities of the Doe defendants and request that the Court grant
26
Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to identify and join these Doe defendants. No opposition
27
to the motion was filed. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs shall file a proposed amended
28

1

complaint in support of their motion to amend the complaint.

2
3

II.
A.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard

4

After the time has passed for a party to amend its pleading as a matter of course, Federal Rule

5

of Civil Procedure 15 provides that a party may amend its pleading only by leave of court or by

6

written consent of the adverse party and that leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.

7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit has instructed that the policy favoring amendments "is

8

to be applied with extreme liberality." Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074,

9

1079 (9th Cir. 1990).

10

The factors commonly considered to determine the propriety of a motion for leave to amend

11

are: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, and (4) futility of amendment.

12

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The Ninth Circuit has held that it is the consideration

13

of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon,

14

Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the

15

remaining Foman factors, a presumption in favor of granting leave to amend exists under Rule 15(a).

16

Id. Further, undue delay alone is insufficient to justify denial of a motion to amend. Bowles v.

17

Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir. 1999). Finally, "[a]mendments seeking to add claims are to be

18

granted more freely than amendments adding parties." Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Nev. Power Co.,

19

950 F.2d 1429, 1432 (9th Cir. 1991); contra DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186

20

(9th Cir. 1987) ("[L]iberality in granting leave to amend is not dependent on whether the amendment

21

will add causes of action or parties.").

22

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California's Local Rules provide the

23

following procedural requirement when a party is seeking court approval for filing an amended

24

complaint:

25
26
27

If filing a document requires leave of court, such as an amended complaint after the
time to amend as a matter of course has expired, counsel shall attach the document
proposed to be filed as an exhibit to moving papers . . . .
Local Rule 137(c).

28
2

1

B.

Analysis

2

Plaintiffs' motion for leave to identify eight Doe defendants and to amend their complaint is

3

insufficient. While the motion identifies eight defendants who were previously pled as Doe

4

defendants, Plaintiffs have failed to file a proposed amended complaint for consideration. Beyond

5

this procedural deficiency, the claims against the Doe defendants in the complaint lump all the Doe

6

defendants together as Does 1-30 for each claim. Given the identity of the Doe defendants Plaintiffs

7

present in their motion, it appears that not all of the claims originally pled in the complaint will be

8

applicable against each of the eight newly-identified defendants. For example, it is very difficult to

9

understand how Doe 1, now identified by Plaintiffs as Kevin Flores, an inmate at Corcoran State

10

Prison, would be liable under Section 1983 for failure to properly train and supervise (see Doc. 1,

11

Cmplt. ¶¶ 61-72), even though the complaint states that this claim is against all defendants including

12

Does 1 through 30. It appears that Plaintiffs may also be seeking to amend the complaint to state

13

additional causes of action against these newly identified Does. In any event, the filing of a proposed

14

amended complaint is not only procedurally required, but it is necessary to assess the scope of the

15

amendments proposed. Bautista v. L.A. Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 840-41 (9th Cir. 2000) ("Experience

16

teaches that, unless cases are pled clearly and precisely, issues are not joined, discovery is not

17

controlled, the trial court's docket becomes unmanageable, the litigants suffer, and society loses

18

confidence in the court's ability to administer justice." (quoting Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trustees,

19

77 F.3d 364, 367 (11th Cir. 1996))). If Plaintiffs wish to amend the complaint to identify these eight

20

Does, they must replead the complaint providing substantive allegations against each Doe

21

defendant whose identity has been newly discovered.

22

Further, while Defendants did not file any opposition to the motion to amend, they also failed

23

to submit any statement of non-opposition. It appears that Defendants currently have no objection

24

to Plaintiffs' proposed amendment; although, without the benefit of a proposed amended complaint,

25

Defendants probably have had insufficient information to assess whether they are amenable to

26

Plaintiffs' proposed amendment. Given these circumstances, once Plaintiffs have filed a proposed

27

amended complaint for Defendants and the Court to consider in support of the motion to amend, the

28

parties SHALL meet and confer to determine whether an agreement to stipulate to the filing of an
3

1

amended complaint can be reached. If there is no agreement to stipulate to the proposed amended

2

complaint, the Court expects Defendants to file an opposition to the motion to amend.

3

III.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

6

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

On or before January 23, 2013, Plaintiffs shall file a proposed amended complaint
in support of their motion to amend;

7

2.

8

On or before January 30, 2013, the parties SHALL meet and confer regarding
Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint;

9

3.

10

If the parties are willing to stipulate to Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint, such
a stipulation should be filed on or before February 6, 2013;

11

4.

If the parties cannot reach agreement to stipulate to the filing of the proposed

12

amended complaint, any opposition to the motion to amend shall be filed on or

13

before February 6, 2013;

14

5.

15

The hearing currently set for January 23, 2013, is CONTINUED to February 20,
2013, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 7; and

16

6.

17

Plaintiffs' failure to file a proposed amended complaint on or before January 23,
2013, will result in denial of the motion to amend.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated:
ie14hj

January 14, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4