Ransom v. Aguirre et al

Filing 54

ORDER DENYING 48 Motion to Amend the Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 10/17/2013. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
RODOLFO AGUIRRE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12cv01343 AWI DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Document 48)

16
17

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

18

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this

19

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 8, 2013, the Court ordered that this

20
21
22

action go forward on claims for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, inhumane
conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment, deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment, negligence and intentional infliction

23

of emotional distress.
24
25
26

On June 17, 2013, the Defendants who were served in state court filed a Motion to
Dismiss certain claims. Plaintiff was instructed on service for the remaining Defendants and an

27
28

1

1

Order to Show Cause is currently pending based on Plaintiff’s failure to effectuate service.

2

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is also pending.

3
4

On September 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to File an Amended Complaint.
Defendants opposed the motion on September 25, 2013. Plaintiff did not file a reply and the

5

motion is therefore deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
6

DISCUSSION

7
8

A.

LEGAL STANDARD
“Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so

9
10

requires.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006)

11

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the

12

amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue

13

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

14

insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.’” Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,

15

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

16
17
18

Cir. 1999)).
B.

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks to amend a single paragraph in his First Amended Complaint.

19

Specifically, he seeks to amend paragraph 146, which reads, in part:
20
21
22
23
24

146. Between 2010 and 2013, Defendants T. Macias, E. Clark, R. Lopez, S. Hubbard
and C. Gibson implemented Operational Procedure No. 1051 stating in pertinent part:
“Once the inmate accepts a meal tray or staff witnesses the inmate consuming food,
the hunger strike shall be declared over” of which has been interpreted by Prison
Officials as a green light in support of their practice of withholding Plaintiff’s daily
state issued meals until he abandons his “SOLID FOOD” hunger strike.

25
26
27
28

2

1

Plaintiff requests that he be permitted to make clear the fact that he was not on

2

total hunger strike, but rather a “solid foods” only hunger strike, and that Defendants’

3
4
5

implementation of Operational Procedure No. 1051 resulted in him eating no food at all in order
to qualify as a recognized hunger strike participant. Plaintiff alleges that this “drastically and
unwillingly and underhandedly” changed the conditions of his solid food hunger strike to a total

6
7
8
9

hunger strike. Mot. 2. He contends that this accelerated the onset of his starvation and
dehydration, caused him additional unnecessary pain and suffering, and unconstitutionally
prevented him from exercising his right to peacefully protest through a solid food hunger strike.

10

Plaintiff sets forth no reasons for moving to amend after Defendants have filed a Motion

11

to Dismiss, other than to state that he believes the above paragraph does not satisfactorily allege

12

that his declared hunger strike consisted of only refusing solid foods, and that the

13

implementation of Operational Procedure No. 1051 required that he eat no food.

14
15
16
17
18
19

Defendants oppose the amendment as unnecessary and futile. Defendants also believe
that Plaintiff filed this motion in bad faith, given that the First Amended Complaint clearly and
repeatedly alleges that Plaintiff was on a solid food hunger strike and that Defendants withheld
all food for various reasons. Defendants contend the allegations in the First Amended Complaint
are sufficient to put them on notice that Plaintiff felt that his rights had been violated by
Defendants’ alleged refusal to provide him with liquids during his solid food hunger strike.

20
21
22
23

The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s amendment is unnecessary. The First Amended
Complaint adequately conveys Plaintiff’s factual contentions and constitutional claims.
Moreover, Plaintiff does not explain why he moves to amend now, while Defendants’ motion to

24

dismiss is pending. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is based on Plaintiff’s alleged failure to

25

exhaust his state law claims, and his proposed amendment does not address or cure any

26

exhaustion issues.

27
28

3

1
2
3
4

Plaintiff also seeks to amend his requested relief to include a request for an injunction
ordering Defendants to rewrite Operational Procedure No. 1051. However, because the Court
will not permit the above amendment, it will not permit Plaintiff to amend to include related
relief.

5

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is DENIED.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated:

9
10
11

/s/ Dennis

October 17, 2013

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

L. Beck

4