Kent v. U.C. Davis Medical Center et al

Filing 51

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/29/18 DENYING 49 Motion for leave to amend. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONALD KENT,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-1924 WBS AC P

v.

ORDER

U.C. DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

17
18

U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a motion to amend the complaint, stating that he seeks to add

19

additional claims and defendants. ECF No. 49. Defendant Rudas opposes the motion. ECF No.

20

50.
Leave to amend is to be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

21
22

However, plaintiff fails to attach the required copy of his proposed amended complaint that would

23

allow the court to determine whether leave to amend would be appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

24

15; L.R. 137(c). Furthermore, plaintiff indicates that he seeks to add new defendants based on

25

events that took place between 2010 and 2011 (ECF No. 49 at 3, ¶ 4), and documents he

26

submitted with his first amended complaint indicate that the claims currently before the court

27

arose in either 2012 or 2014 (ECF No. 22 at 5-13, 15, 23), making it unlikely that joinder of the

28

////
1

1

new claims and defendants would be proper.1

2

Plaintiff is advised that multiple claims are properly joined if they are against a single

3

defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Multiple defendants are properly joined if “any right to relief is

4

asserted against them . . . with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or

5

series of transactions or occurrences; and any question of law or fact common to all defendants

6

will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). In other words, joining more than one claim is

7

only proper when it is against one defendant, and joining multiple defendants in one complaint is

8

only proper when the claims against them are based on the same facts.

9

Finally, plaintiff states that he needs to add new evidence against defendant Rudas. ECF

10

No. 49 at 3, ¶ 3. It is not clear if this reference to new evidence means plaintiff has new claims or

11

that he is trying to bolster his current claims. Although plaintiff would need to amend the

12

complaint to add new claims or new defendants, he does not need to amend the complaint if he is

13

only seeking to add new evidence about his current claims. Evidence about current claims can be

14

submitted in relation to any future motion for summary judgment, or at trial if the case proceeds

15

to trial.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (ECF

17

No. 49) is DENIED.

18

DATED: January 29, 2018

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In his opposition, defendant argues that the claims would also be time-barred. ECF No. 50 at 35. Given the apparent age of the claims, it does appear that they are likely barred by the statute of
limitations. However, the court is unable to make a determinative assessment in light of the
limited information currently before it.
2