Harris v. Pimentel, et al.
Filing
206
ORDER DENYING Defendant's 192 Motion to Dismiss or Strike Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 8/12/2019. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DARRELL HARRIS,
Case No. 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS OR STRIKE
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Defendant.
ECF No. 192
14
15
S. ESCAMILLA,
16
17
Plaintiff Darrell Harris is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel in this civil rights
18
action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 25, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
19
Ninth Circuit held that this court erred in granting summary for defendant Escamilla on Harris’s
20
First Amendment and Equal Protection claims, and remanded for Harris to amend his Bane Act
21
claim. See ECF No. 167; Harris v. Escamilla, 736 F. App’x 618 (9th Cir. 2018). On June 19,
22
2018, I gave Harris leave to amend. ECF No. 171. Between the remand and the amendment,
23
Harris—once pro se—obtained counsel. ECF No. 187. Harris filed his second amended
24
complaint on September 7, 2018. ECF No. 191. The amendments were substantial, but did not
25
include a Bane Act claim. On September 21, Escamilla filed a motion to dismiss or strike the
26
second amended complaint, arguing that the amendments were unauthorized by the court of
27
appeals’ mandate and contained “immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter” that should be
28
struck under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules. See ECF No. 192. Harris filed an opposition on
1
1
2
October 5. ECF No. 196. Escamilla replied on October 10. ECF No. 198.
I am not persuaded that Harris’s second amended complaint should be dismissed or
3
struck. First, the complaint does not violate the court of appeals’ mandate. While “lower courts
4
are obliged to execute the terms of a mandate, they are free as to anything not foreclosed by the
5
mandate.” United States v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 1092 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations and
6
internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the court of appeals “remand[ed] this claim to the
7
district court for Harris to be given leave to amend.” Harris, 736 F. App’x at 622. While the
8
panel contemplated a narrow amendment that would “allege compliance with the Government
9
Claims Act” for the purpose of a Bane Act claim, the mandate did not foreclose other
10
amendments. The scope of other amendments was not a “matter decided on appeal” from which
11
this court “cannot vary” or “examine . . . for any other purpose than execution.” In re Sanford
12
Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247, 255 (1895). I thus retain discretion over the scope of
13
amendments under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules.
14
Second, Harris’s second amended complaint does not contain “immaterial, impertinent, or
15
scandalous matter” that should be struck under Rule 12(f). The purpose of a Rule 12(f) motion to
16
strike is “to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious
17
issues.” Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). Here, I see no
18
evidence that the amendments to the complaint are “spurious”; to the contrary, they refine the
19
First Amendment and Equal Protection claims that were before the court of appeals.
20
Harris was, until recently, proceeding without counsel. The first amended complaint was
21
handwritten on notebook paper; the second has been honed with the input of an attorney.
22
Compare ECF No. 9 with ECF No. 191. Rule 15(a)(2) commands that a “court should freely give
23
leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” See also Penwell v. Holtgeerts, No. 05-2106, 2013
24
WL 3553417, at *2 (W.D. Wash. July 11, 2013) (noting that amendments like those here can be
25
“especially appropriate” for a pro se plaintiff). Here, justice is best served by allowing the
26
amendments.
27
28
2
1
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
Dated:
August 12, 2019
4
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
6
7
No. 205.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?