Crime, Justice & America, Inc. et al v. McGinness, Sheriff

Filing 69

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 1/10/13 GRANTING 60 Motion to Amend the Complaint, except for the portion in which they seek to recover punitive damages from defendant in his official capacity. Plaintiffs have 10 days leave from the date on which this Order is filed to file the amended complaint referenced in this Order. (Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CRIME, JUSTICE & AMERICA, INC.,
a California corporation; and
RAY HRDLICKA, an individual,
Plaintiffs,

13
v.

14
15
16
17
18

SCOTT JONES, in his official
capacity of Sheriff of the
County of Sacramento,
California,*
Defendant.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:08-cv-00394-GEB-EFB
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND DENYING MOTION
TO JOIN PARTY

19

Plaintiffs move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”)

20

20(a)(2) for an order joining the present Sheriff of the County of

21

Sacramento, Scott Jones, as a Defendant. (Mot. 14:14—15:2.) However,

22

this portion of Plaintiffs’ motion is denied since current Sheriff Scott

23

Jones is already the Defendant in this action under Rule 25(d). See Fed.

24

R. Civ. P. 25(d) (“[W]hen a public officer who is a party in an official

25

capacity . . . ceases to hold office while the action is pending[, t]he

26
27
28

*

The name of the Defendant in the caption has been changed under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), which automatically substitutes
a successor public officer when a public officer sued in his official
capacity ceases to hold office.
1

1

officer’s successor is automatically substituted as a party.”); see also

2

Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 470 (1985) (recognizing the same).

3

Plaintiffs also move under Rules 16(b)(4) and 15(a)(2) for

4

“leave to amend the Complaint to add claims for violations of due

5

process[,] equal protection,” and

6

opposes

7

Plaintiffs have not established good cause justifying the amendment as

8

required under Rule 16. “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily

9

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. . . . If

10

that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Johnson v. Mammoth

11

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Defendant contends

12

Plaintiffs did not exercise due diligence because Plaintiffs waited to

13

seek leave to amend the complaint until after a decision was issued on

14

the summary judgment motion. (Opp’n 7:19—8:9.) Plaintiffs argue they

15

could

16

(Pretrial Scheduling) Order because Defendant failed to disclose the

17

bases for Plaintiffs’ proposed claims until over nine months after the

18

close of the period for amendments and until two weeks before the

19

deadline for Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendant’s summary judgment

20

motion, at which point “Plaintiffs’ focus and efforts were on the

21

summary

22

sufficiently

23

therefore, given an “overall evaluation of [t]he rights of the parties,

24

the ends of justice, and judicial economy,” Defendant has not shown that

25

Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the good cause standard. United States v.

26

Dang, 488 F.3d 1135, 1143, 1142 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming modification

27

of the schedule based on the district court’s “overall evaluation of

28

[t]he rights of the parties, the ends of justice, and judicial economy”

Plaintiffs’

neither

seek

judgment

motion

to

amendment

motion.”

controvert

damages. (Mot. 1:24—25.) Defendant
amend

the

earlier

(Reply

Plaintiffs’

2

nor

complaint,

comply

6:26—27.)
position

arguing

with

the

Defendant
on

this

that

Status

fails

matter,

to
and

1

even

2

(internal quotation marks omitted).

though

plaintiff

could

have

sought

leave

to

amend

earlier)

3

Defendant additionally contends under Rule 15 that he would be

4

unfairly prejudiced by the addition of Plaintiffs’ claims because he

5

“may be unable to identify and/or locate witnesses with knowledge of

6

incidents occurring approximately eight (8) years earlier, witness

7

recollection may now be unclear, and relevant documents may be lost or

8

destroyed.” (Opp’n 14:26—28.) However, Defendant has not sustained his

9

“burden of showing prejudice” from Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments, DCD

10

Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987), which

11

come

12

disclosing the bases for Plaintiffs’ proposed claims. Nor—despite his

13

separate arguments concerning bad faith, futility and unfair delay—has

14

Defendant made a strong showing under any of these factors. See Eminence

15

Capital LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir 2003) (“Absent

16

prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors,

17

there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave

18

to amend.”).

at

this

late

date

largely

due

to

Defendant’s

own

delay

in

19

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint

20

is granted, except for the portion in which they seek to recover

21

punitive damages from Defendant in his official capacity. (See ECF No.

22

60-1, Ex. A, 12:12—13; Reply 15:1—10.) This portion of the request is

23

denied since an official sued in his official capacity is not liable for

24

punitive damages. Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 527 (9th Cir. 1996);

25

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 1284 (9th

26

Cir. 1994). Plaintiffs have ten (10) days leave from the date on which

27

//

28

//
3

1

this Order is filed to file the amended complaint referenced in this

2

Order.

3

Dated:

January 10, 2013

4
5
6

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4