Bell v. Lee et al
Filing
19
ORDER 10 18 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/8/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
VINCENT KEITH BELL,
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
No. C 13-5820 SI (pr)
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
11
KEN LEE, Deputy; et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
/
14
Vincent Keith Bell, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this pro se civil
15
rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining of conditions of confinement at the jail. The
16
court found that the amended complaint (Docket # 5) stated cognizable § 1983 claims against
17
several defendants for excessive force, retaliation and denial of due process in disciplinary
18
proceedings. Service of process was ordered on seven members of the San Francisco Sheriff's
19
Department, who have now appeared in this action.
20
Bell has filed a "motion to amend adding new defendant and date change." Docket # 10.
21
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend should be freely given when
22
justice so requires but the court cannot make that determination without seeing the proposed new
23
pleading. See Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d 360, 374 (3d Cir. 2000) ("Obviously, without this draft
24
complaint, the District Court cannot evaluate the merits of a plaintiff's request . . . [T]he court
25
had nothing upon which to exercise its discretion.") The motion to amend is DENIED because
26
Bell did not attach the proposed second amended complaint. Docket # 10. It would not be in
27
the interest of justice to construe the motion to amend to actually be the second amended
28
complaint because there are many pleading problems with it and further amendment would be
necessary. As the defendants point out in their opposition to the motion, many of Bell's
1
allegations lack sufficient detail to allow defendants or the court to understand what claims Bell
2
is making against the defendants. See Docket # 17 at 2.
3
In his motion to amend, Bell indicated that he wanted to correct the date of the excessive
4
force incident, which is appropriate. Bell also indicated that he wanted to add one or more new
5
defendants, which may be permissible, depending on the claims against those defendants. For
6
each new defendant he wants to add, Bell must allege what that defendant did or failed to do that
7
caused a denial of plaintiff' constitutional rights. Bell also must state the dates on which any
8
constitutional violation allegedly occurred to give the defendants fair notice of the claims against
9
them. Bell must file his second amended complaint no later than June 12, 2015, or the action
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
will proceed without the new defendant(s).
11
Plaintiff filed a "motion for denial of extension of time," in which he argues that the
12
deadline for defendants to file their dispositive motion should not be extended. Plaintiff's motion
13
is DENIED. Docket # 18. The court already granted the requested extension of time in the order
14
filed April 9, 2015 and even more time is now necessary because of Bell's own desire to add
15
claims against one or more new defendants. It is appropriate to further extend the deadline for
16
dispositive motions so that all defendants can be served and potentially file a motion on the same
17
schedule. Accordingly, the court now sets the following new briefing schedule: Defendants'
18
motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion must be filed and served no later than
19
August 1, 2015. Plaintiff's opposition to the motion for summary judgment or other dispositive
20
motion must be filed and served on defense counsel no later than August 28, 2015. Defendants'
21
reply brief, if any, must be filed and served no later than September 11, 2015.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 8, 2015
_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?