Garrison v. Bautista

Filing 65

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 05/04/15 ordering counsel for defendant Officer Bautista is ordered to show cause in writing, within 14 days of entry of this order, as to why plaintiff should not be granted leave to file an amended complaint that names Corporal Estudillo as an additional defendant. If counsel does not oppose such an amendment, she should so indicate in her response to this order. Counsel should also indicate whether she is willing to accept service of an amended complaint on behalf of Corporal Estudillo. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY TYRONE GARRISON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-0479 JAM KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

OFFICER BAUTISTA,
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, currently incarcerated at California State Prison–Solano.

18

Plaintiff proceeds, in forma pauperis and without counsel, in this civil rights action filed pursuant

19

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Bautista, a police officer with the City of

20

Vallejo Police Department, used excessive force during the course of an arrest by kicking plaintiff

21

in the jaw. Presently before the court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF

22

No. 60.) Plaintiff filed an opposition (ECF No. 61), and defendant filed a reply (ECF No. 63).

23

Defendant submitted a declaration in support of his summary judgment motion. (ECF

24
25
26
27
28

No. 60-4 at 1-2.) He therein avers:
I arrived at the scene of plaintiff's arrest after plaintiff had crashed
and exited his vehicle. When I arrived, plaintiff was being taken
into custody and handcuffed. I wrote a report that day confirming
this and my involvement in the pursuit. A true and correct copy of
the entire report is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The portion I
authored is entitled "Supplemental Report” and starts at page 10 of
11.
1

1
2
3

(Id. ¶ 5.)
The court has reviewed the police report which defendant filed. (ECF No. 60-4 at 3-16.)
A portion of that report, apparently written by one Corporal Estudillo, provides as follows:
I purposely utilized a ‘round house’ kick striking the suspect in the
side of his head to keep from reaching into his waistband. I utilized
this emergency strike zone acting under the belief that the suspect
was retrieving a gun. Upon kicking him he appeared to stop
reaching and showed his hands.

4
5
6
7
8
9

(Id. at 14.)
Based on prior filings in this matter, the court is of the view that plaintiff may have
misunderstood this portion of the police report. Plaintiff has, on at least three prior occasions,

10

moved to file an amended complaint in this matter (to name the City of Vallejo and/or the Vallejo

11

Police Department as defendants), and thrice been denied. (See ECF Nos. 22, 41, 49.) In

12

conjunction with the last such motion, plaintiff filed a proposed Third Amended Complaint in

13

which he alleged:

14

Defendant Bautista attempted to cover up his police report by
saying he did a round house kick but the report clearly states
Plaintiff was on the ground. Defendant Bautista attempted to make
it seem like plaintiff had a weapon.

15
16
17

(ECF No. 49-1 at 1.) The court infers from this passage that plaintiff misread the quoted passage

18

from the police report and believed it to be written by defendant, rather than by Corporal

19

Estudillo, a non-party. The court is of the view that, particularly in light of his status as a pro se

20

litigant, plaintiff should not be prejudiced by his misreading of the report, and should be

21

permitted to proceed against the party who may have actually inflicted the injury on which he

22

sues. Cf., Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957, 958 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that “we tolerate

23

informalities from civil pro se litigants” and expressing “concern for the pro se prisoner litigant

24

who also faces the unique handicaps of incarceration.”) Moreover, it would be a waste of

25

resources, for all involved, to permit plaintiff to continue to proceed against the incorrect

26

defendant.

27
28

The court has the power to sua sponte permit the amendment of a complaint to name
additional defendants. See Fed R. Civ. P. 21 (“On motion or on its own, the court may at any
2

1

time, on just terms, add or drop a party.”) Moreover, “[t]he court should freely give leave [to

2

amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Leave to amend is entrusted to the

3

sound discretion of the trial court . . . .” Pisciotta v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 1326, 1331

4

(9th Cir. 1996).

5

The court is mindful that there may be aspects of this case of which it is unaware and that

6

ought to bear on its decision as to whether to allow plaintiff to proceed against Corporal Estudillo.

7

Accordingly, the court will solicit defendant’s view as to the propriety of permitting plaintiff to

8

amend the operative complaint to name Corporal Estudillo as a defendant.

9

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

10

1. Counsel for defendant Officer Bautista is ordered to show cause in writing, within

11

fourteen days of entry of this order, as to why plaintiff should not be granted leave to

12

file an amended complaint that names Corporal Estudillo as an additional defendant.

13

If counsel does not oppose such an amendment, she should so indicate in her response

14

to this order. Counsel should also indicate whether she is willing to accept service of

15

an amended complaint on behalf of Corporal Estudillo.

16

2. The court will defer issuing findings and recommendations regarding defendant’s

17

motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 60) until it decides the issue of whether

18

plaintiff will be permitted to file an amended complaint herein.

19

Dated: May 4, 2015

20
21
/garr0479.osc

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3