Gomez v. CDCR et al

Filing 55

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/1/2019 DENYING without prejudice 53 Motion to Amend the Complaint. (Henshaw, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD GOMEZ, 12 13 14 15 No. 2: 17-cv-1247 JAM KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER CDCR, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the second amended complaint filed April 2, 2018 19 against defendant Diaz. (ECF No. 16.) Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to 20 file a third amended complaint. (ECF No. 53.) Although defendant Diaz has not opposed this 21 motion, for the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motion to amend is denied without prejudice. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs the motion, and provides: (1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b), (c), or (f), whichever is earlier. (2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its 1 1 pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires. 2 3 4 5 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Because plaintiff is proceeding on a second amended complaint, he may file an amended complaint by leave of court or with defendant’s consent. A motion for leave to amend must “state with particularity the grounds therefor and shall 7 set forth the relief or order sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1); Wright, Miller, & Kane, Federal 8 Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 1485 (“A motion to amend under Rule 15(a) ... is subject to the 9 requirements of Rule 7(b), and must set forth with particularity the relief or order requested and 10 11 the grounds supporting the application”). While plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend, the motion does state with particularity 12 the grounds for the motion to amend. In other words, plaintiff does not describe how his 13 proposed third amended complaint is different from the second amended complaint. For this 14 reason, the motion to amend is denied. 15 As discussed herein, after comparing the second amended complaint and proposed third 16 amended complaint, the changes plaintiff seeks to make in the proposed third amended complaint 17 are unclear. 18 In the second amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that on July 24, 2016, defendant Diaz 19 threatened to retaliate against plaintiff and other inmates in the common area if they continued to 20 write staff misconduct complaints against his nursing staff. (ECF No. 16 at 3.) Defendant Diaz 21 stated, “If you inmates write another appeal on me or one of my nurses I will make living here in 22 this unit very difficult or I will even move you out of the unit.” (Id.) 23 Plaintiff alleges that within one week of defendant Diaz’s threat to retaliate, Correctional 24 Officer Garcia told plaintiff that he had initiated paperwork to have plaintiff moved from the 25 housing unit. (Id.) 26 On September 19, 2016, Correctional Lieutenant Thomas interviewed plaintiff regarding 27 the threats made to plaintiff by defendant Diaz and Officer Garcia. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that the 28 threats and harassment temporarily stopped after plaintiff spoke with Correctional Lieutenant 2 1 2 3 4 Thomas. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Nurse Harper interviewed three other witnesses and plaintiff regarding the administrative appeal filed regarding the threats. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that not long after defendant Diaz made the threats to plaintiff, defendant 5 Diaz and the Certified Nursing Assistants began retaliating against plaintiff by depriving him of 6 medical treatment. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Diaz and Nurse Limpiado refused to 7 replace plaintiff’s foley internal catheter. (Id.) As a result, plaintiff suffered from a distended 8 bladder, sweating and muscle spasms. (Id.) 9 Plaintiff also alleges that in retaliation, Nursing Assistants Saber, Dagne and Johnson 10 delayed in changing his adult diapers. (Id.) Plaintiff cannot change his adult diapers without 11 assistance due to his paralysis. (Id.) Plaintiff complained about these incidents to defendant Diaz 12 to no avail. (Id.) 13 Plaintiff alleges that the alleged deprivations of adequate medical care were a direct 14 consequence of falling into disfavor with defendant Diaz after the staff complaint/appeal plaintiff 15 wrote regarding defendant’s threats. (Id.) 16 The proposed third amended complaint contains the same allegations as the second 17 amended complaint but for the claim that defendant Diaz and Nurse Limpiado refused to replace 18 plaintiff’s foley catheter. It is not clear whether plaintiff intentionally omitted this claim. 19 In addition, it appears that plaintiff is attempting to name new defendants in the proposed 20 third amended complaint. While plaintiff clearly names defendant Diaz in the proposed third 21 amended complaint, he also requests that “all defendants be served by U.S. Marshall’s.” (ECF 22 No. 53 at 8.) However, plaintiff does not clearly identify the new defendants. 23 The proposed third amended complaint also seeks punitive and compensatory damages of 24 $125,000. (Id. at 8.) However, the second amended complaint seeks punitive and compensatory 25 damages of $150,000. (ECF No. 16 at 6.) It is unclear whether plaintiff intended to reduce the 26 amount of damages sought. 27 28 If plaintiff files another amended complaint, he shall describe his proposed amendments in the motion to amend. 3 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to file a third amended 2 complaint (ECF No. 53) is denied without prejudice. 3 Dated: August 1, 2019 4 5 6 7 8 9 Gom1247.ame(ord) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?