Coston v. Nangalama et al

Filing 186

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 10/24/2018 DENYING 171 Request for Leave to Amend Complaint. (York, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANNY MURPHY COSTON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:10-cv-02009-MCE-EFB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

ANDREW NANGALAMA, M.D., et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

On July 28, 2010, Plaintiff Danny Murphy Coston (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner

19

proceeding pro se, filed the present civil rights action against Defendants Andrew

20

Nangalama, M.D., (“Nangalama”) and Ronald Hale, L.V.N., (“Hale”) (collectively

21

“Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide medical treatment in

22

violation of his Eighth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 2, 2015,

23

following the close of Plaintiff’s case-in-chief at trial, this Court granted Defendants’

24

Motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 and dismissed this case. ECF

25

No. 143. On March 2, 2015, Plaintiff appealed that dismissal (ECF No. 147) and by

26

Memorandum filed September 21, 2016, the Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment in

27

Defendants’ favor, and remanded for further proceedings, on grounds that this Court

28

failed to provide Plaintiff with a Rule 50(a) notice prior to dismissal. ECF No. 157.
1

1

The matter is now scheduled for a second, two-day jury trial to commence on

2

November 13, 2018 in accordance with the Court’s Fourth Supplemental Pretrial Order

3

filed January 30, 2018. ECF No. 161. On August 20, 2018, some seven months after

4

that Fourth Supplemental Pretrial Order was issued, and more than eight years after this

5

case was originally filed on July 28, 2010, Plaintiff has moved to amend his complaint,

6

purportedly under the auspices of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, to add Sgt. Dana

7

Boggs as an additional defendant. That Motion (ECF No. 171) is presently before the

8

Court for adjudication.

9

Rule 15(a), under which Plaintiff’s Motion is brought, provides that “leave [to

10

amend] shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The policy

11

of favoring amendments to pleadings, as evinced by Rule 15(a), “should be applied with

12

extreme liberality.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). Once a

13

district court has filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Rule 16, however, that

14

Rule’s standards control. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08

15

(9th Cir. 1992). Here, the Court’s Initial Scheduling Order was filed September 15, 2011,

16

(ECF No. 44) and, as indicated above, the most recent Supplemental Pretrial Order was

17

filed on January 30, 2018. Once a scheduling order has been issued, which here

18

occurred more than seven years ago, the Court can modify its scheduling order only

19

upon a showing of “good cause.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).1

20

“Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy, which focuses on the bad faith of

21

the party seeking to interpose an amendment and the prejudice to the opposing party,

22

Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking

23

the amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. In explaining this standard, the Ninth

24

Circuit has stated that:

25

////

26
27
28

1

The Court notes that once a Final Pretrial Conference has been conducted to formulate a trial
plan, including a plan to facilitate the admission of evidence, a Final Pretrial Order issued after such a
conference can be modified “only to prevent manifest injustice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e). Here, because the
Court does not conduct formal Final Pretrial Conferences in prisoner cases like this one, the present
motion will be analyzed only under the less rigorous “good cause” standard.

2

1

[A] district court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot
reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking
the extension.” Moreover, carelessness is not compatible with
a finding of diligence and offers no reason for granting of relief.
Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party
opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to
deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving
party’s reasons for seeking modifications. If that party was not
diligent, the inquiry should end.”

2
3
4
5
6
7

Id. (citations omitted).
Factually, this case stems from the discovery of more than 50 morphine pills in

8

Plaintiff’s cell by Sgt. Dana Boggs on March 18, 2008. After concluding that Plaintiff was

9

hoarding his prescribed morphine in order to pass the drug on to another inmate, the

10

prison doctor, Defendant Nangalama, along with Defendant Hale discontinued Plaintiff's

11

morphine prescription. Plaintiff claims he thereafter went into drug withdrawal and that

12

Defendants consequently failed to provide medical treatment in violation of his Eighth

13

Amendment rights.

14

While Plaintiff’s initial complaint, filed on July 28, 2010, mentions Sgt. Boggs'

15

involvement in finding the hoarded morphine, it does not purport to include Boggs as a

16

defendant. Under the terms of the initial Scheduling Order issued on September 15,

17

2011, any motions to amend had to be filed not later than January 6, 2012. ECF No. 44.

18

While Plaintiff did subsequently file a Motion to Amend on December 9, 2011 (ECF

19

No. 45), and while that Motion was ultimately denied (ECF No. 50), Plaintiff’s Motion did

20

not seek to add Boggs as a defendant. Now, more than eight years after the complaint

21

was filed and after this matter has already proceeded to trial once, Plaintiff seeks to

22

amend his complaint to add Sgt. Boggs as a party to this lawsuit. As indicated above,

23

he is permitted to do so only if he can demonstrate diligence in not moving to amend

24

sooner.

25

Plaintiff has not even attempted to meet that standard, and the facts of this matter

26

demonstrate that he cannot do so. Plaintiff has known of Sgt. Boggs’ involvement in this

27

matter from the onset, and moved to amend his complaint nearly seven years ago but

28

failed to request Boggs’ inclusion as a defendant. Under those circumstances, and
3

1

given the time period that have elapsed from both the 2010 filing of the complaint and

2

Plaintiff’s deadline for moving to amend in 2012, Plaintiff cannot now be deemed diligent

3

in moving to amend. Significantly, too, prior to the initial 2015 trial in this matter, after

4

Defendants moved to include their witness list to include Sg. Boggs, and after the Court

5

re-opened discovery limited solely to Sgt. Boggs, Plaintiff filed a motion in limine to

6

exclude Sgt. Boggs from testifying on the ground he was “irrelevant to this case.” ECf

7

No. 130, 5:5-6.

8
9
10
11

For all these reasons, Plaintiff’s Request for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF
No. 171) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 24, 2018

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4