Glass v. Gregory et al
Filing
23
ORDER Denying Motion To Amend Complaint (Doc. 22 ), signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 9/4/2015. (Fahrney, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DONALD GLASS,
Case No. 1:14-cv-01703-RRB
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO AMEND COMPLAINT
A. GREGORY, et al.,
Defendants.
I.
PENDING MOTION
At Docket 22 Plaintiff Donald Glass has moved for leave to file an amended
Complaint in compliance with the Court’s prior Order. The record reflects that after
screening the Complaint the Court permitted Glass to proceed on his excessive force claim
against Defendants A. Gregory and S. Duran; in all other respects the Complaint was
dismissed without leave to amend.1 Defendants Gregory and Duran have answered the
Complaint,2 and the Court has entered its Discovery and Scheduling Order.3
II.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
In his Amended Complaint, in addition to the excessive force claim against Gregory
and Duran (Fourth Cause of Action), Glass asserts three additional causes of action
against eight others: Correctional Officer J. McAllister; Correctional Officer J. Anderson;
1
Docket 8.
2
Docket 14.
3
Docket 15.
Correctional Officer M. Chavez; Correctional Sgt. M. Bremmer; Correctional Lt. J. Ybarra;
Correctional Lt. S. Wilson; Nurse A. Vilches; and Licensed Vocational Nurse W. Tredwell.
In his proposed First Cause of Action Glass asserts a retaliation claim against McAllister,
Ybarra, Wilson, Bremmer, Anderson, and Chavez. In his Second Cause of Action, Glass
asserts an excessive force claim also against McAllister, Ybarra, Wilson, Bremmer,
Anderson, and Chavez. In his Third Cause of Action Glass asserts a deliberate medical
indifference claim against Vilches, Tredwell, Wilson and Bremmer.
III.
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
As the Court noted in its earlier Order striking Glass’ first attempt to file his amended
complaint, the Amended Complaint is subject to screening.4 In addition to the usual
screening requirements, the Court must determine whether the proposed Amended
Complaint satisfies the applicable standards for amending a complaint.
IV.
STANDARD
Analysis starts with the general rule that leave to amend should be “freely given
when justice so requires.”5 Leave to amend a complaint should be freely given in the
absence of any apparent or declared reasons such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory
motive on part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by allowing the amendment, and
futility of amendment.6
4
Docket 20.
5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
6
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West,
Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2006).
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Glass v. Gregory, 1:14-cv-01703-RRB – 2
If feasible, a person may be joined either as plaintiff or defendant if the joinder will
not deprive the court of jurisdiction and in the absence of the person to be joined either:
(1) complete relief can not be granted; or (2) the person claims an interest in the subject
of the suit and absence may (i) impair or impede the ability to protect that interest or (ii)
leave parties already party to the suit subject to a substantial risk of incurring multiple or
inconsistent obligations.7
With respect to joinder of parties, the Rules provide:
(a) PERSONS WHO MAY JOIN OR BE JOINED.
* * * *
(2) Defendants. Persons—as well as a vessel, cargo, or other property
subject to admiralty process in rem—may be joined in one action as
defendants if:
(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in
the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in
the action.8
V.
DISCUSSION
The issue before the Court is the nexus of the first three causes of action (against
McAllister, Anderson, Chavez, Bremmer, Ybarra, Wilson, Vilches, and Tredwell) to the
fourth (against Gregory and Duran). The proposed Amended Complaint adds eight new
defendants, as well as three new claims unrelated to the claim against Gregory and Duran.
Initially, the Court notes that, even absent joinder of McAllister, Anderson, Chavez,
Bremmer, Ybarra, Wilson, Vilches, and Tredwell, complete relief can be granted with
respect to the claims against Gregory and Duran. Nor does the failure to join McAllister,
7
Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a).
8
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a).
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Glass v. Gregory, 1:14-cv-01703-RRB – 3
Anderson, Chavez, Bremmer, Ybarra, Wilson, Vilches, and Tredwell either impair the ability
of either those Defendants or Glass to protect their interests, or subject them to any risk
of incurring multiple or inconsistent obligations. Thus, the proposed Amended Complaint
does not fall within the parameters of Rule 19(a).
The commonality is that Glass’ claims against the Defendants arise out of his
incarceration at Kern Valley State Prison. Standing alone, that both his Second and Fourth
Causes of Action involve excessive force claims, is insufficient to support a determination
that they arise out of the same series of transactions. Although it is alleged that McAllister,
Ybarra, Wilson, Bremmer, Anderson, and Chavez acted in concert with each other, there
is no allegation they acted in concert with Gregory and/or Duran.9 Indeed, the Amended
Complaint itself clearly and distinctly differentiates between the acts of McAllister, Ybarra,
Wilson, Bremmer, Anderson, and Chavez on the one hand and Gregory and Duran on the
other.
The only apparent “prejudice” Glass might suffer is that he will be required to pay
a separate filing fee. The Seventh Circuit addressed that issue.
[T]hat unrelated claims against different defendants belong in separate
lawsuits, not only to prevent the sort of morass produced by multi-claim,
multi-defendants suits like this one, but also to ensure that prisoners pay all
fees required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, see 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b), (g). Complaints like this one from Owens should be rejected, . . .,
either by severing the action into separate lawsuits or by dismissing
improperly joined defendants.10
9
Glass’ vague, conclusory statement of the existence of some general conspiracy is
insufficient. See United Broth. of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Building and Const. Trades
Dep’t, AFL–CIO, 770 F.3d 834, 842 (9th Cir. 2014); Kendall v. Visa USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1042, 1047
(9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombley, 544 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)).
10
Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted) (citing George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)).
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Glass v. Gregory, 1:14-cv-01703-RRB – 4
The Court agrees with the rationale of the Seventh Circuit. Congress has adequately
provided for relief from the filing fee requirement. The Court can perceive no principled
reason to extend that relief further.
Even if amendment were permitted, it would not relate back to the filing of the
original Complaint. An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original
pleading if: (1) permitted by the applicable statute of limitations; (2) arises out of the same
conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading; or (3) changes the
party or naming of a party if (2) is satisfied and the party to be named had notice of the
action within the time permitted for service of a complaint under Federal Rule Civil
Procedure 4(m) and knew or should have known that, but for the mistake in identity, he
would have been named originally.11 As noted above, to the extent it adds the claims
against McAllister, Ybarra, Wilson, Bremmer, Anderson, and Chavez, the proposed
Amended Complaint clearly does not arise of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence
alleged in the Complaint. Thus, because the proposed Amended Complaint does not
relate back, requiring Glass to bring an entirely new action against McAllister, Anderson,
Chavez, Bremmer, Ybarra, Wilson, Vilches, and Tredwell, would not necessarily bar Glass
from bringing his action against them in a separate action.
VI.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend His (Pleadings)
Complaint at Docket 22 is DENIED without prejudice. If Plaintiff desires to further pursue
his claims against Correctional Officer J. McAllister; Correctional Officer J. Anderson;
11
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c).
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Glass v. Gregory, 1:14-cv-01703-RRB – 5
Correctional Officer M. Chavez; Correctional Sgt. M. Bremmer; Correctional Lt. J. Ybarra;
Correctional Lt. S. Wilson; Nurse A. Vilches; and Licensed Vocational Nurse W. Tredwell,
he must do so in a separate action. The Court renders no opinion as to the viability of
those claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of September, 2015.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Glass v. Gregory, 1:14-cv-01703-RRB – 6
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?