Smith et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 188

FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Denying Plaintiffs' Motion To Amend The Consolidated Complaint (ECF No. 182 ), Objections Due Within Fourteen Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/19/2015. F&R's referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 11/4/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

COREY LAMAR SMITH, et al.,

12
13
14

Case No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB

Plaintiffs,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DENYING PLAINTIFFS‟
MOTION TO AMEND THE CONSOLIDATED
COMPLAINT

v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

(ECF No. 182)
15

Defendants.
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS

16
17
18

I.

19

BACKGROUND

20

On May 20, 2015, this court issued a findings and recommendations recommending

21

granting Defendants‟ motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint filed in this action on the

22

ground that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 164.) Plaintiffs filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations on June 24, 2015. (ECF No. 175.)

24

While the findings and recommendations was still pending before the district judge,

25

Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the consolidated complaint on September 9, 2015. (ECF No.

26

182.) This motion was stayed pending the district judge‟s decision on the outstanding findings

27

and recommendations. (ECF No. 184.) On October 7, 2015, a memorandum decision and order

28

issued dismissing the Eighth Amendment claims without leave to amend on the ground that
1

1

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

2

over the state law claims raised in the consolidated complaint.1

3

memorandum order left this action open so the undersigned could rule on the pending motion to

4

amend the consolidated complaint.

5
6

(ECF No. 186.)

The

Accordingly, this Court now addresses the motion to amend the consolidated complaint
filed on September 9, 2015.

7

II.

8

DISCUSSION

9

Amendments of the pleadings are governed by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil

10

Procedure. Under Rule 15(a), a party may amend the party‟s pleading once as a matter of course

11

at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave

12

of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when

13

justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend „shall be

14

freely given when justice so requires.‟” Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465

15

F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant

16

leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad

17

faith; (3) produces an undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id.

18

In this instance, Plaintiffs seek leave to file an amended consolidated complaint to add the

19

former secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as a defendant in

20

this action. (ECF No. 182 at 2.) In the October 7, 2015 memorandum order, the Court found that

21

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the Eighth Amendment claims under any

22

definition of the constitutional right at issue. (ECF No. 186 at 10.) Therefore, the Eighth

23

Amendment claims were dismissed without leave to amend. (Id. at 23.) As the Court has

24

determined that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims raised in the

25

consolidated complaint and the federal claims have been dismissed without leave to amend, the

26

Court finds that amendment of the complaint to add an additional defendant would be futile.

27
28

1

The stay of this motion shall be lifted by order filed subsequently with this findings and recommendations.

2

1

Accordingly, the Court recommends that the motion to amend the consolidated complaint be

2

denied.

3

III.

4

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

5

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

6

1.

Plaintiffs‟ motion to file an amended consolidated complaint be DENIED; and

7

2.

The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this action.

8

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this

9

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court‟s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen

10

(14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these

11

findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

12

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge‟s Findings and Recommendations.” The

13

district judge will review the magistrate judge‟s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28

14

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified

15

time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th

16

Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 19, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3