Hearns v. Hedgpeth et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying 15 Motion to Amend the Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/21/2014. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CLARENCE L. HEARNS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:14-cv-00408-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
(Doc. 15.)

A. HEDGPETH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Clarence L. Hearns (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

20

commencing this action on February 13, 2013 at the U.S. District Court for the Northern

21

District of California. (Doc. 1.) On June 4, 2013, the court dismissed the Complaint with leave

22

to amend. (Doc. 9.) On June 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc.

23

10.) The court screened the First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and

24

issued an order on October 4, 2013, dismissing defendants Terrance, Hedgpeth, Jensen,

25

Medina, Halderman, Noland, and Perez from this action with prejudice, and transferring the

26

case to the Eastern District of California. (Doc. 11.)

27

On April 3, 2014, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action

28

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 14.)
1

1

Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of

2

California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as

3

reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

4

On August 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended

5

Complaint. (Doc. 15.)

6

II.

LEAVE TO AMEND – RULE 15(a)

7

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the

8

party=s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.

9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written

10

consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Id.

11

ARule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend >shall be freely given when justice so

12

requires.=@ AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir.

13

2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts Aneed not grant leave to amend where

14

the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an

15

undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.@ Id. The factor of A>[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is

16

insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.=@ Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,

17

Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712,13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58

18

(9th Cir. 1999)). Because Plaintiff has already amended the complaint once, and he does not

19

have Defendants’ consent to amend, Plaintiff requires leave of court to file a Second Amended

20

Complaint.
Plaintiff’s Motion

21

A.

22

Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to add newly discovered facts, to “resume this

23

action against defendants Hedgpeth, warden at Salinas Valley State Prison and Correctional

24

Sergeant Jensen at Salinas Valley State Prison.” (Motion at 1.) Plaintiff asserts that since these

25

defendants were dismissed from the First Amended Complaint, he has received documentary

26

evidence that Salinas Valley State Prison’s R&R had actual possession of Plaintiff’s legal

27

property since September 12, 2010.

28

///
2

1

B.

2

As noted above, defendants Hedgpeth and Jensen were dismissed from this action by

3

the Northern District of California, with prejudice, before the case was transferred to this

4

district.

Discussion

5

First, because defendants Hedgpeth and Jensen were dismissed with prejudice in the

6

Northern District of California, Plaintiff may not add those defendants to this case or proceed

7

with his prior claims against them. Second, venue for Plaintiff’s claims arising from events at

8

Salinas Valley State Prison, where defendants Hedgpeth and Jensen are employed, are not

9

proper in this district because Salinas Valley State Prison is located in the Northern District of

10

California, and those claims may not be pursued in this action. For these reasons, it would be

11

futile for Plaintiff to bring these claims again in a Second Amended Complaint.

12

III.

13
14

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion for leave to

amend, filed on August 18, 2014, is DENIED as futile.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 21, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3