Sim v. Duran et al
Filing
29
ORDER granting Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint, and directing Clerk of Court to file Second Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit 1 to Motion to Amend 25 signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/7/2018. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
HWA SUNG SIM,
Plaintiff,
v.
14
MONICA DURAN, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
Case No. 1:16-cv-01051-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
AMEND THE COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING
CLERK OF COURT TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTACHED AS
EXHIBIT 1 TO MOTION TO AMEND )
[ECF. No. 25]
Plaintiff Hwa Sung Sim is appearing in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to amend, filed December 29, 2017.
20
I.
21
BACKGROUND
22
23
24
25
26
27
This action is proceeding against Defendant Monica Duran for excessive force and against
Defendant Dr. Johal for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
On July 31, 2017, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint. On August 1, 2017, the Court
issued the discovery and scheduling order.
As previously stated, on December 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint.
Defendants filed an opposition on January 19, 2018. Plaintiff did not file a reply. Therefore, the
28
1
1
motion is deemed submitted for review without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l). For the reasons
2
discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion to amend is granted.
3
II.
4
DISCUSSION
5
6
Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint to identify and substitute Dr. Patel as a Doe
Defendant. Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint is attached to his motion.
7
Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s
8
pleading once as a matter of course twenty-one days after serving, or if a response was filed, within
9
twenty-one days after service of the response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Otherwise, a party may
10
amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
11
Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires.’”
12
AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R.
13
Civ. P. 15(a)). “This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” C.F. v. Capistrano Unified Sch.
14
Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 985 (9th Cir. 2011). “This liberality in granting leave to amend is not dependent
15
on whether the amendment will add causes of action or parties.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton,
16
833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the
17
amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay
18
in the litigation; or (4) is futile.” AmerisourceBergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 951.
19
Here, Defendants Duran and Johal answered the first amended complaint in this action on July
20
31, 2017. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint was not filed within twenty-one days of that date.
21
Therefore, Plaintiff requires leave of court to file an amended complaint.
22
Plaintiff filed the initial and first amended complaint pro se, and counsel did not appear until
23
after service of the amended complaint was ordered. In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged,
24
that a riot took place on August 31, 2017 while he was housed at Wasco State Prison, and although
25
Plaintiff was not involved in the riot he was shot by Defendant Duran. (First Amd. Compl. (FAC), at
26
7-8.) After the shooting, Plaintiff was taken to the medical facility and was released within hours.
27
(FAC at 16.) Plaintiff was not provided a CT scan or a mandatory 24 hour evaluation even though he
28
was rendered unconscious by the projectile. (Id.) The next morning, Plaintiff woke up with a large
2
1
amount of blood and vomit on his bed. (Id.) Plaintiff was admitted to the hospital for a CT-scan and
2
MRI on September 1, 2014. (Id.) After release from the hospital, Plaintiff received no medical
3
treatment from medical staff for approximately ten days. (Id.) During the ten days, Plaintiff
4
submitted several medical forms requesting evaluation by a doctor. (Id.) When Plaintiff finally went
5
to the medical department he complained of dizziness, nausea and vomiting; however, Dr. Johal
6
and/or John Doe told Plaintiff he was lying and making a big thing out of nothing. (Id.) The doctor
7
did not send Plaintiff to a specialist for his injuries. (Id.) On October 5, 2014, Plaintiff had a seizure
8
in the dayroom of his building, and he was admitted to the hospital. (Id.) Prior to being shot in the
9
head, Plaintiff did not have seizures and he has no prior history of seizures. (Id.) In March 2015,
10
Plaintiff blacked out in the central kitchen where he worked. (Id.)
11
Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion and argue that the proposed amendment is futile because
12
the Court has already dismissed the claims against all Doe Defendants and he failed to timely identify
13
Dr. Patel.
14
In its screening order, the Court construed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint as alleging a
15
claim of deliberate indifference against only Defendant Dr. Johal. However, upon further review and
16
as set forth by Plaintiff, it is reasonable to interpret the claim to include a cognizable allegation of
17
deliberate indifference against the Doe Defendant, now identified as Dr. Patel. In addition, although
18
the Court has subsequently dismissed the Doe Defendants, such fact does not negate against a finding
19
that the interest of justice is served by allowing Plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint to
20
reinstate and identify a Doe Defendant, at this time.
Defendants contend that Plaintiff knew of the identity of Dr. Patel when he filed the original
21
22
and first amended complaints because he was identified in Plaintiff’s medical records.
23
Plaintiff submits that Defendant Dr. Johal was deposed on December 18, 2017, and it was
24
discovered for the first time that Doctor Patel is the John Doe Doctor, and the only Doctor available to
25
provide care for Plaintiff in September 2014.1 (Conlogue Decl. ¶ 3.) Further, Plaintiff’s counsel
26
propounded a Request for Production of Documents to Defendants on September 11, 2017, and
27
1
28
The Court notes that although Defendants were not required to provide initial disclosures, Plaintiff indicates initial
disclosures were requested but denied which resulted in the necessity for formal discovery. (Conlogue Decl. ¶ 5.)
3
1
Defendants provided responses with documents on October 26, 2017. (Conlogue Decl. ¶ 6.) Upon
2
review of the documents, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Defendant Johal so that Plaintiff’s counsel
3
could obtain a better understanding of the medical documents produced.
4
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint, and finds that it simply
5
substitutes Dr. Patel for the previously identified Doe Defendant in the first amended complaint, but
6
does not seek to add any additional unrelated claims, allegations, or events. Thus, the notice
7
provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) appear to be satisfied. The Court finds that
8
Plaintiff does not seek leave to amend in bad faith. See Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 961
9
(9th Cir. 2006) (“A party ‘demonstrates bad faith by delaying or disrupting the litigation or hampering
(Conlogue Decl. ¶ 7.)
10
enforcement of a court order.’”) (citing Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644, 649
11
(9th Cir. 1997)). Plaintiff’s motion to amend is timely; under the existing schedule, and discovery
12
does not close until April 1, 2018.2 Based on the fact that Plaintiff was pro se at the time the original
13
and first amended complaints were filed,3 the fact that counsel did not appear in the action until May
14
2017, and discovery did not open until August 2017, the Court finds Plaintiff’s counsel exercised
15
reasonable diligence in conducting his own investigation into identifying the appropriate Defendants.
16
See DCD Programs, Ltd., 833 F.2d at 187-88 (the prejudice to a non-movant is mitigated if discovery
17
is still open and there is no evidence the non-movant would be prejudiced by the timing of the
18
proposed amendment). Thus, given the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that there was no
19
undue delay in naming the Doe Defendant. Defendants have not made a sufficient showing to
20
overcome the presumption in favor of granting leave to amend under Rule 15 in this instance.
21
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint will be granted.
22
///
23
///
24
2
25
The time necessary for service and a response to the second amended complaint may require a schedule modification, but
it is premature to address that matter now.
26
3
27
28
See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting “Supreme Court precedent that instructs federal
courts to liberally construe the “inartful pleading” of pro se litigants”); Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir.
1986) (holding that pro se litigants should be treated with great leniency when evaluating compliance with the technical
rules of civil procedure).
4
1
III.
2
ORDER
3
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
4
1.
Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is granted;
5
2.
The Clerk of the Court will is directed to file Plaintiff’s proposed second amended
6
complaint, attached to the motion to amend (ECF No. 25);
3.
7
8
The Clerk of Court is further DIRECTED to issue Plaintiff a summons for Defendant
Dr. Patel; and
4.
9
Plaintiff must complete service of process and file proof thereof with the Court within
10
ninety days pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), or request that the United States
11
Marshal serve a copy of the summons and complaint.
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
Dated:
15
February 7, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?