Candler v. Santa Rita County Jail Watch Commander et al

Filing 58

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF's MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT, AND REFERRING DISCOVERY DISPUTES TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE ( 40 , 41 , 44 , 45 , 47 ). Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/9/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2013)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

Plaintiff,

7
8
9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10
11

Case No.: C 11-1992 CW (PR)

MARK ANTHONY CANDLER,

v.
SANTA RITA COUNTY JAIL WATCH
COMMANDER, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PLAINTIFF's MOTION TO AMEND
COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
DENYING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT
COMPLAINT, AND REFERRING
DISCOVERY DISPUTES TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
(Docket nos. 40, 41, 44, 45,
47)

12
13
14

INTRODUCTION
15
Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay
16
State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to
17
42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining about his conditions of confinement
18
during the period of his incarceration as a pretrial detainee at
19
the Santa Rita County Jail (SRCJ).

Specifically, Plaintiff

20
alleges that (1) from June 17, 2008 through December 13, 2010,
21
Defendants held him in disciplinary lock-up without disciplinary
22
charges or a hearing, and did not provide him with cleaning
23
materials for his cell or with the requisite minimum of three
24
hours of exercise a week, and (2) from March 2009 through
25
December 2010, he routinely went for more than seventy-two hours
26
without a shower.

Plaintiff claims Defendants placed him in such

27
adverse conditions of confinement not because of his conduct but,
28
instead, in retaliation and at the request of the District

1

Attorney.

2

and that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference.

3

He claims the violation of his right to due process

On May 13, 2013, the Court denied Defendants' first motion

4

for summary judgment without prejudice so that Plaintiff could

5

obtain necessary discovery.

6

all discovery be completed by August 1, 2013, that all discovery-

7

related motions be filed by August 15, 2013, and that Defendants

8

file their motion for summary judgment no later than September 1,

9

2013.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Doc. no. 36.

The Court ordered that

Thereafter, on August 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed two

11

discovery-related motions, doc. nos. 44 and 45, which Defendants

12

have opposed and, on August 30, 2013, Defendants filed their

13

motion for summary judgment, doc. no. 47.

14

Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint, doc.

15

no. 40, and a motion to supplement his complaint, doc. no. 41.

16

For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the motion to

17

supplement the complaint, denies without prejudice the motions to

18

amend the complaint and the motion for summary judgment and

19

refers the discovery disputes to a Magistrate Judge.

20
21
22

Also, in June 2013,

DISCUSSION
I. Supplemental Complaint
Plaintiff moves to supplement his complaint to add events

23

that occurred in October 2012 when Plaintiff was transferred to

24

the SRCJ for a short period of time.

25

on the ground that they would be prejudiced by responding to

26

claims based on incidents that occurred two years after the

27

incidents upon which the original complaint is based.

28
2

Defendants oppose primarily

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) permits “supplemental

2

pleadings setting forth transactions or occurrences or events

3

that have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be

4

supplemented.”

5

complete an adjudication of the dispute between the parties as is

6

possible.

7

1119 (9th Cir. 1986).

8

courts broad discretion in allowing supplemental pleadings.

9

rule is a tool of judicial economy and convenience.”

The purpose of Rule 15(d) is to promote as

LaSalvia v. United Dairymen of Ariz., 804 F.2d 1113,
“Rule 15(d) is intended to give district
The

Keith v.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473 (9th Cir. 1988).

11

complaint should have some relation to the claim set forth in the

12

original pleading,” and a court may deny leave to supplement a

13

complaint on grounds of undue delay, prejudice to the opposing

14

party, or futility.

15

“[A] supplemental

Id. at 474.

Because the events in the proposed supplemental pleading

16

occurred more than two years after the events alleged in

17

Plaintiff's amended complaint, responding to them at this time

18

would cause undue prejudice to Defendants.

19

Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the denial of this motion

20

because he may file a new complaint based upon the later events.

21

Therefore, the motion to file a supplemental complaint is denied.

22

II. Amended Complaint

23

On the other hand,

Plaintiff moves for leave to amend his complaint to add

24

Sergeant Scott M. Busby as a Defendant.

25

that, in reviewing Defendants' motion for summary judgment, he

26

realized that Sgt. Busby was a member of the Classification Unit

27

which determined that Plaintiff should be housed in

28

Administrative Segregation without disciplinary charges or a

3

Plaintiff indicates

1

hearing and, thus, violated Plaintiff's rights to due process.

2

Defendants oppose the motion on the following grounds:

3

(1) Plaintiff failed to file a notice of motion as required by

4

Rule 7(b)(1) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure;

5

(2) Plaintiff failed to attach a copy of his proposed amended

6

complaint to his motion; and (3) Defendants will be prejudiced

7

because this case has been pending for more than two years,

8

discovery is scheduled to be closed shortly and Defendants have a

9

short time in which to file their summary judgment motion.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants also argue that amendment would be futile because they

11

will prevail on their motion for summary judgment.

12

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to

13

amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires."

14

considering whether to grant or deny a motion seeking leave to

15

amend a complaint, the district court may consider whether there

16

is bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party,

17

futility in the amendment, and whether the plaintiff has

18

previously amended his complaint.

19

Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990).

20

provides that any party moving to file an amended pleading must

21

reproduce the entire proposed pleading and may not incorporate

22

any part of a prior pleading by reference.

In

Allen v. City of Beverly
Civil Local Rule 10-1

23

Defendants cannot claim prejudice when one of the reasons

24

this case has been pending so long is their failure to provide

25

Plaintiff discovery.

26

Judgment at 2-3.

27

renewed motion for summary judgment, they repeat the argument

28

from their previous motion, that Plaintiff is suing the wrong

See May 13, 2013 Order Denying Summary

Also, the Court notes that, in Defendants'

4

1

Defendants because they did not cause the harm he alleges.

2

discovery, it would be appropriate for Defendants to provide the

3

identity of the individuals who were responsible for the alleged

4

wrongful conduct.

5

information to Plaintiff, they can hardly claim that they will be

6

prejudiced if Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to add the

7

proper Defendants.

8

their prediction that they will prevail on their motion for

9

summary judgment is premature.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

In

Because Defendants have not yet provided this

Also, Defendants' futility argument based on

Plaintiff has not included with his motion a proposed

11

amended complaint.

12

amendments that contain portions of claims and less than all

13

defendants.

14

However, denial is without prejudice to filing another motion

15

submitted with a proposed amended complaint.

16

discovery disputes are referred to a Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff

17

may wait until the resolution of these disputes to file a new

18

motion to amend.

19

III. Discovery Disputes

20

Parties may not file piecemeal complaints or

Plaintiff's motion is denied for this reason.

Because the

On August 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed two discovery motions

21

which Defendants have opposed.

22

1, Plaintiff's pending discovery motions and all further

23

discovery motions filed in this case are referred to a Magistrate

24

Judge to be considered at the convenience of the assigned

25

Magistrate Judge.

26
27

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-

In light of this referral, the discovery cut-off date in
this case is vacated and Defendants' motion for summary judgment

28
5

1

is denied without prejudice to refiling after the resolution of

2

the discovery disputes.

3

CONCLUSION

4

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

5

1.

6

DENIED without prejudice.

7
8

2.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Docket no. 40.

Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental complaint is

DENIED with prejudice.

9
10

Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint is

Docket no. 40.

3. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied without
prejudice.
4.

11

Docket no. 47.
Plaintiff's motions for discovery are referred to a

12

Magistrate Judge.

13

the Court when the discovery disputes are resolved.
5.

14

Docket nos. 44, 45.

The parties are to inform

As indicated above, Plaintiff may wait until the

15

resolution of the discovery disputes to file an amended complaint

16

to name the proper Defendants.

17

twenty-one days after the resolution of the disputes.

18

Plaintiff decides to file a renewed motion to amend his

19

complaint, at the same time he must also submit the proposed

20

second amended complaint (SAC), on the Court's civil complaint

21

form.

22

number, 11-1992 CW (PR), and the words "Second Amended Complaint"

23

on the first page.

24

complaint supersedes the original complaint.

25

waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint

26

which are not alleged in the amended complaint.”

27

Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981).

28

not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants.

However, he must do so within
If

The SAC must include the caption of this case and the case

Plaintiff is advised that an amended

6

“[A] plaintiff

London v.
Defendants
See

1
2

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).
6. If Plaintiff does not file a SAC within twenty-one days

3

after the resolution of the discovery disputes, his case will go

4

forward on the basis of his First Amended Complaint (FAC).

5

the FAC remains the operative complaint, Defendants may refile

6

their present motion for summary judgment.

7

This Order terminates Docket nos. 40, 41 and 47.

8

If

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Dated: 10/9/2013

11

____________________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7