Ervin v. Merced Police Dept. et al

Filing 59

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 55 Motion to Amend Complaint as Moot Because the Complaint Already Incorporates the Proposed Amendment signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/30/2015. (Martinez, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15

ELTON W. ERVIN,

16
17

Plaintiff,
v.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

1:13-cv-00446 GSA
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AS
MOOT BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT
ALREADY INCORPORATES THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT

MERCED POLICE DEPARTMENT, et
al.,
Defendants.

(Doc. 55)

Plaintiff Elton Ervin (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in this civil action, in which he
alleges violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 5, 2015, Plaintiff
filed a Motion to Amend Complaint. Doc. 55. Plaintiff’s motion, which is one paragraph long,

25
26
27
28

seeks to have “the records reflect” that Officers Chavez, Aponte, Salyer, and Padgett “are each
being sued in their individual capacity.” Doc. 55. Defendants City of Merced and Officers
Chavez, Aponte, Salyers, and Padgett (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a response to Plaintiff’s
1

1

motion to amend on January 27, 2015. Doc. 58. The Defendants affirmatively acknowledge,

2

with reference to Plaintiff’s operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), that Officers Chavez,

3

Aponte, Salyer, and Padgett “are already sued in their individual capacity.” Doc. 58. A review of

4

Plaintiff’s operative FAC, filed on January 3, 2013 (and removed to federal court on March 26,

5
6

2013), further confirms that Officers Chavez, Aponte, Salyer, and Padgett are indeed sued in their

7

individual capacities. See Doc. 1, p. 34, FAC, ¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11. Finally, the Court notes that

8

“[t]here is no longer a need to bring official-capacity actions against local government officials,

9

for under Monell ... local government units can be sued directly for damages and injunctive or

10
11
12

declaratory relief.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n. 14 (1985), citing Monell v. Dep't
of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint is DENIED as moot.

13
14
15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 30, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2