Sessing v. Beard, et al.

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING 22 Plaintiff's Motion to File Amended Pleading signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/3/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
NATHAN SESSING,
10
Plaintiff,
11

Case No. 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO FILE AMENDED PLEADING

v.
12

(ECF No. 22)
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

13
Defendants.
14
15

I.

16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17
18

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The First Amended Complaint was dismissed for
failure to state a claim. Plaintiff’s motion to amend his Second Amended Complaint was

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

granted before that complaint was screened. His Third Amended Complaint is now before
the Court for screening.
On February 27, 2015 Plaintiff moved again for leave to amend, and to submit his
Fourth Amended Complaint for screening. (ECF No. 22.)
II.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s sole reason for amending his complaint is that he would like to replace K.

26
27
28

Smith with her successor, J. Braggs, as a defendant. Because this proposed amendment
would be unnecessary and futile in light of the official-capacity nature of Plaintiff’s claims,
1

1

the Court will DENY Plaintiff’s motion. The Court explains its reasoning in more detail

2

below.

3

A. Legal Standard

4
The decision to grant or deny leave to amend pleadings is within the trial court's
5
6

discretion. Swanson v. U.S. Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v.

7

Cnty. of San Diego, 53 F.3d 965, 969 n.6 (9th Cir. 1995). A party seeking leave to amend

8

pleadings must demonstrate that amendment is proper under Federal Rule of Civil

9

Procedure 15. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir.

10
11

1992). Under Rule 15(a)(2), the court should freely give leave to amend a pleading “when
justice so requires.” The Court should apply this policy “with extreme liberality.” Owens v.

12
13
14

Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Morongo Band
of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F. 2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990)). “If the underlying facts or

15

circumstances relied upon by a [party] may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be

16

afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182

17

(1962).

18
19

However, a district court may deny leave to amend where there is “‘any apparent or
declared reason’ for doing so, including undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party

20
21

or futility of the amendment.” Lockman Found. v. Evangelical Alliance Mission, 930 F.2d

22

764, 772 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182). These factors are not to be

23

given equal weight. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir.

24

2003). Prejudice to the opposing party must be given the greatest weight. Id. “Absent

25

prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a

26
27

presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id.
B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend

28
Here, Plaintiff’s proposed amendment would be futile. The only reason he gives for
2

1

amending is that Defendant Smith has left her position as CPM, or “head of chaplains,” at

2

Corcoran Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, and therefore that he would like to replace

3

her in his pleadings with her successor, Ms. Braggs. However, Plaintiff’s Third Amended

4
Complaint specifies that he is suing Defendants in their official capacity. (ECF No. 20, at 3.)
5
6

Because a suit against a state official in her official capacity is treated as a suit against the

7

State, in which the “real party in interest… is the governmental entity and not the named

8

official,” when such named official leaves office, “[her] successor automatically assumes

9

[her] role in the litigation.” Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991); see also Hartmann v.

10
11

CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1127 (9th Cir. 2013). Here, Ms. Braggs will automatically replace
Ms. Smith as a defendant in this suit without his having to file anything. Allowing Plaintiff

12
13
14

leave to amend to include her would thus be duplicative and serve no useful purpose.
Therefore the Court DENIES the Motion to Amend. The Court will proceed with screening

15

of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint.

16

III.

17
18

ORDER
For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

file an amended complaint (ECF No. 22) is DENIED.

19
20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 3, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4