Thomas v. Rene Wilkinson , et al

Filing 65

ORDER DENYING Motion for Leave to Amend 63 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/28/17. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSH THOMAS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. 1:15-cv-00527-LJO-GSA-PC ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 63.) WILKINSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Josh Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on April 20 21, 2014, at the Fresno County Superior Court, case number 14CECG01710. (ECF No. 2, Exh. 21 A.) On April 2, 2015, defendant Jasmine A. Tehrani removed the complaint to federal court 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). (ECF No. 2.) This case now proceeds with the original 23 complaint against defendant Renee Wilkinson, Ph.D.1 (“Defendant”) on Plaintiff’s Eighth 24 Amendment deliberate indifference claim and related state claims.2 (Id.) 25 26 1 27 2 28 Sued as “Rene Wilkinson.” (ECF No. 41 at 1:23-34.) On October 5, 2015, the court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and found that it stated an Eighth Amendment claim and state law claims against defendants Tehrani and Wilkinson. (ECF No. 30.) On March 22, 2017, the claims against defendant Tehrani were dismissed from this case as barred by the statute of limitations. (ECF No. 54.) Therefore, defendant Wilkinson is now the sole defendant in this case. 1 1 2 On May 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to add defendants to the Complaint. (ECF No. 63.) Plaintiff’s motion is now before the court. 3 4 II. LOCAL RULE 220 AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 15(a) AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 5 Local Rule 220 provides, in part: 6 Unless prior approval to the contrary is obtained from the Court, every pleading to which an amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by court order shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading. No pleading shall be deemed amended or supplemented until this Rule has been complied with. All changed pleadings shall contain copies of all exhibits referred to in the changed pleading. 7 8 9 10 11 Under Rule 220, for Plaintiff to add defendants to the Complaint, he must file an amended complaint which is complete in itself. 12 Here, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the Complaint to add defendants. Under Rule 13 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s pleading once as a 14 matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, a party may 15 amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be 16 freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In this case, a responsive pleading 17 has been served. Therefore, Plaintiff may not file an amended complaint without leave of 18 court. 19 “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so 20 requires.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 21 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where 22 the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an 23 undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id. The factor of “‘[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is 24 insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.’” Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, 25 Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712,13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 26 (9th Cir. 1999)) 27 Plaintiff seeks leave to add the Board of Parole Hearing’s Commissioners and Forensic 28 Assessment Psychologists as defendants. Plaintiff asserts that the Board of Parole Hearings 2 1 was well aware that defendant Wilkinson mingled Mr. Carranza’s data with Plaintiff’s 2 information, because it ordered a new evaluation report, and the Board’s Forensic Assessment 3 Psychologist was also well aware, because they [sic] refused to general [sic] a new evaluation 4 report. Plaintiff states that the Board has continued to rely on the false information as of this 5 date and are liable for violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights “arising out of the same 6 transaction.” (ECF No. 63 at 1.) Plaintiff argues that the court should allow him to add these 7 defendants because they “will rely on or review, and use, [Plaintiff]’s data even as of the last 8 parole hearing.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff argues that his motion to amend should be granted because 9 of a “continuing violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional right.” (Id.) 10 Plaintiff’s case now proceeds on his Eighth Amendment claim based on allegations that 11 his psychological report was used at a Board of Parole hearing on January 29, 2008, even 12 though another inmate’s records had been erroneously commingled with Plaintiff’s records in 13 the report. 14 willingly and intentionally refused to generate a new Psychological Evaluation Report,” despite 15 a request by the Board and Plaintiff on two occasions. (Id. at 8). He further contends that 16 defendant Wilkinson falsified his evaluation report, which the Board relied on to deny parole 17 and order mental health therapy. (Complaint at 6-7.) Plaintiff claims that Defendant Wilkinson “knowingly, 18 Presently, Plaintiff seeks to add members of the Board of Parole Hearings as defendants 19 for the continuing violations of his rights, contending that they continue to rely on false 20 information commingled with Plaintiff’s data in the psychological report “as of this date” and 21 “as of [Plaintiff’s] last parole hearing.” (ECF No. 63 at 2.) Plaintiff’s reliance on the theory of 22 a continuing violation is misplaced. The continuing violation doctrine is an equitable doctrine 23 designed “to prevent a defendant from using its earlier illegal conduct to avoid liability for later 24 illegal conduct of the same sort.” O’Loghlin v. County of Orange, 229 F.3d 871, 875 (9th Cir. 25 2000). To establish a continuing violation, a plaintiff must show “a series of related acts 26 against a single individual . . . that . . . ‘are related closely enough to constitute a continuing 27 violation.’” Green v. Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, 883 F.2d 1472, 1480-81 28 (9th Cir. 1989) (quotations and citations omitted). The mere continuing impact from a past 3 1 violation is not actionable under the continuing violation doctrine. Knox v. Davis, 260 F.3d 2 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001). Therefore, it would be futile for Plaintiff to add defendants to this 3 case based on a theory of continuing violations, and Plaintiff’s motion to amend shall be 4 denied. 5 Plaintiff is advised that if he brings another motion to amend in the future, he should 6 submit a proposed amended complaint with the motion, for the court’s review. 7 III. CONCLUSION 8 Based on this analysis, the court finds that Plaintiff’s proposed amendment to the 9 Complaint would be futile. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s May 22, 10 2017, motion to amend the complaint is denied. 11 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 28, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?