Phillips, et al. v. County of Fresno, et al.

Filing 84

ORDER Granting Motion to Amend Complaint to Substitute Doe Defendant (Doc. 73). (1) Plaintiffs Motion to Substitute Classification Officer Cinthya Diaz for John and Richard Doe is GRANTED; (2) Plaintiffs shall file a Second Amended Complaint, con sistent with this order, within seven days of service of this Order; (3) Plaintiffs shall serve Classification Officer Cinthya Diaz with the Second Amended Complaint no later than May 14, 2015. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/14/2015. (Herman, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
COUNTY OF FRESNO; MARGARET)
MIMS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER L.)
HERR #9899, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER)
CASTRO; JOHN DOE AND RICHARD)
DOE, individually and in their official)
capacities as correctional and classification)
officers of the Fresno County Sheriff’s)
Department; EDWARD MORENO, M.D.;)
GEORGE LAIRD; PRATAP NARAYAN;)
NANCY POE and CARL COE, individually)
and in their official capacities as health care)
workers in the Fresno County jail system, and)
)
DOES 1-50,
Defendants.
RICHARD PHILLIPS, in his capacity as the
administrator of the ESTATE OF TROY
PHILLIPS; TIFFANY PHILLIPS,

Case No.: 1:13-cv-538-AWI-BAM
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND
COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE DOE
DEFENDANT
(Doc. 73)

24
25
26
27

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Substitute the true name of Defendant John
and Richard Doe as Classification Officer Cinthya Diaz. (Doc. 73). Defendants did not agree to
resolve the matter using the Court’s informal dispute resolution process and filed a written opposition

28
1

1

to the Motion on March 5, 2015. (Doc. 77). The Motion was referred to this Court pursuant to 28

2

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. (Doc. 82). The Court deemed the matter suitable for

3

decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and vacated the hearing scheduled for

4

March 27, 2015. (Doc. 83). Having considered the moving papers, as well as the Court’s file, the

5

motion is GRANTED.

6

BACKGROUND

7

On April 15, 2013, Plaintiffs filed this civil rights action pursuant to Title 42 of the United

8

States Code section 1983, alleging failure to provide adequate protection and medical care to the

9

decedent, Troy Phillips. See Pl’s Complaint, Doc. 1. The Complaint names various Defendants

10

including “John Doe and Richard Doe, individually and in their capacities as correctional officers and

11

classification officers for the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department, the identities and exact numbers of

12

whom are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.” Id. On March 2, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion to

13

substitute Defendant John and Richard Doe as Classification Officer Cinthya Diaz. (Doc. 73). In the

14

motion, Plaintiffs allege that recently discovered evidence revealed that Officer Diaz was involved

15

with the care of Troy Phillips shortly before his death at the Fresno County Jail. (Doc. 73). On March

16

5, 2015, Defendants opposed the motion. Defendants argue that Officer Diaz had little involvement

17

with the death of Troy Phillips, and as a result, Diaz will face substantial prejudice by being named as

18

a Defendant in this action.

19
20
21

DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a court “should freely give leave [to
amend] when justice so requires.” The United States Supreme Court has stated:

24

[i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or
dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of
allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the leave sought should, as
the rules require, be “freely given.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

25

The intent of the rule is to “facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or

26

technicalities.” Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Center of S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143, 1152 (9th Cir. 2011).

27

Consequently, the “policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with ‘extreme

28

liberality.’” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). To evaluate a motion to amend

22
23

2

1

the complaint under Rule 15, the Court should consider factors including: (1) undue delay; (2) bad

2

faith; (3) prejudice to the opponent; and (4) futility of amendment. Loehr v. Ventura County Cmty.

3

Coll. Dist., 743 F.2d 1310, 1319 (9th Cir. 1984).

4

As a basis for amendment, Plaintiffs allege that they were aware of the identities of some, but

5

not all, of the officer Defendants involved in the events leading up to Troy Phillips’ death. See First

6

Amended Complaint, Doc. 39. Plaintiffs knew that other officers were likely involved, but that the

7

identities of these officers would remain unknown until discovery had taken place, and therefore

8

Plaintiffs named these unknown officers as “John Doe and Richard Doe” in the Complaint. Plaintiffs

9

intended to substitute the names as they became available through discovery. When Defendants

10

rolling document production began on December 11, 2014, Plaintiffs received, for the first time,

11

documents identifying Cinthya Diaz as a classification officer involved in the care of Troy Phillips at

12

the Fresno County Jail. Plaintiffs claim that after reviewing documents produced through discovery,

13

they “became aware that Classification Officer Cynthia (sic) Diaz was responsible for removing Troy

14

Phillips from segregated housing, one day after he was placed in segregated housing, and just days

15

before his death.” (Doc. 73). As early as January 15, 2015, Counsel for Plaintiffs requested that

16

opposing counsel stipulate to the substitution of Officer Diaz as a Defendant in place of John and

17

Richard Doe. Defense counsel would not agree to do so. (Doc. 73).

18

In opposing Plaintiffs’ Motion, Defendants do not dispute Plaintiffs’ ignorance of

19

Classification Officer Diaz’s involvement at the time the Complaint was filed. Instead, Defendants

20

argue that the Court should deny the amendment because “Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts to

21

constitute a valid cause of action against Officer Diaz.” (Doc. 77 at 1-2).

22

Diaz will cause her substantial prejudice in having to defend against this suit.

Further, naming Officer

23

The Court has examined all of the factors listed above. There is no evidence that the

24

amendment was unduly delayed, that the substitution was brought in bad faith, or that there will be

25

any unusual prejudice to Officer Diaz in having to defend against this action. As conceded by

26

Defendants, the record does not support a conclusion that Plaintiffs were dilatory in seeking

27

substitution after discovering Officer Diaz’s identity.

28

Plaintiffs. Defendants did not identify Officer Diaz in its initial disclosures. Defendants then did not
3

Indeed, any delay, if at all, does not lie with

1

stipulate to the substitution of Officer Diaz and instead opposed the substitution arguing that the

2

amendment is futile. However, the amendment is not futile. While Defendants challenge Plaintiffs’

3

factual basis for naming Officer Diaz as a potentially responsible party, the Court should determine

4

factual sufficiency under these circumstances on a motion to dismiss rather than a motion to substitute

5

a doe defendant. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiffs request for substitution.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

Richard Doe” is GRANTED;

8
9

2.

Plaintiffs shall file a Second Amended Complaint, consistent with this order, within
seven days of service of this Order;

10
11

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Substitute Classification Officer Cinthya Diaz for “John and

3.

Plaintiffs’ shall serve Classification Officer Cinthya Diaz with the Second Amended
Complaint no later than May 14, 2015.

12
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 14, 2015

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4