Castellanos et al v. State of California et al

Filing 166

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND to Expand Scope of First Amendment Claim. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on July 17, 2016. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EDIN S. CASTELLANOS,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF LEAVE
TO AMEND TO EXPAND SCOPE OF
FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM

v.

9
10

JEREMY J. MAYA,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 15-cv-00272-JSW

12
At the pretrial conference, and in subsequent proceedings, Plaintiff argued he should be

13
14

permitted to amend his First Amendment Claim. The Court ordered Defendant to submit a brief

15

outlining the prejudice he would suffer if the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend. Defendant

16

has submitted his brief. (Docket No. 160). The Court concludes no further argument from the

17

parties is required. For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court DENIES Plaintiff leave to

18

amend to expand the scope of the First Amendment Claim.

19

BACKGROUND
The Court has outlined the facts underlying the dispute in this case in several prior orders,

20
21

and it shall not repeat them here. Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to allege, and to present

22

evidence at trial, that he complained to deputies at the San Francisco County Jail (“SF County

23

Jail”) about Defendant’s treatment of him at the CHP Office.1 According to Plaintiff’s version of

24

events, Defendant was in close proximity to him at the time he made this statement and shortly

25

thereafter Defendant gratuitously pushed him into the cell and then into the wall. These facts are

26
1

27
28

This allegation is separate from a statement that Plaintiff purportedly made to Defendant to
the effect of “Hey, I’m already in jail and in handcuffs. You don’t have any right to push me like
that.” Defendant was asked about this statement at his deposition and did not recall Plaintiff
making such a statement. (Docket No. 43-5, Deposition of Jeremy Maya at 85:15-20.)

1
2

not included in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
Rather, Plaintiff alleged that “[w]hile placing Plaintiff into the holding cell, [Defendant]

3

administered some level of unnecessary force to which Plaintiff verbally objected and, following

4

which and while Plaintiff was still in handcuffs, [Defendant] needlessly and inappropriately threw

5

Plaintiff towards a wall and bench area (in the holding cell) causing him serious physical injuries.”

6

(Docket No. 28, First Amended Complaint ¶ 8, p. 3:20-23.)

7

When Plaintiff alleged that Defendant violated his First Amendment right to freedom of

8

speech, he alleged that this claim was ‘based upon Plaintiff’s right to verbally object to

9

[Defendant’s] use of unnecessary force (see 3:20-23, supra) ….” (Id. ¶ 8, p. 4 n.1.) Although that
statement is more general, the parenthetical specifically refers to the Plaintiff’s objection to an

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

alleged use of force at the SF County Jail. The pages and lines cited in the parenthetical do not

12

recount incidents that occurred at the CHP Office. In addition, in opposition to Defendant’s

13

motion for partial summary judgment, Plaintiff argued that “[t]he evidence in this case (some of

14

which has been admitted by Defendant) confirms free speech was exercised when Plaintiff …

15

verbally objected to an unnecessary pushing of his person while in the holding cell and in

16

handcuffs.” (Docket No. 43, Plaintiff’s Opp. Br. at 19:12-14.) This argument does not clearly

17

encompass a statement made to someone other than Defendant. Although Plaintiff submitted a

18

declaration in support of his motion for summary judgment, he did not mention that he

19

complained to anyone about Defendant’s treatment of him at the CHP Office as he was entering

20

the SF County Jail. (See Docket No. 43-14, Declaration of Edin Castellanos.)

21
22

ANALYSIS
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which governs amendments to pleadings

23

prior to trial, a court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

24

The factors the Court must consider are: “(1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the

25

opposing party, (4) futility of amendment[,]” and (5) whether the moving party previously

26

amended a pleading. In re Western States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 738

27

(9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Each factor is not given equal weight.

28

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). “Absent prejudice,
2

1

or a strong showing of any of the remaining … factors, there exists a presumption under Rule

2

15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

3

Under Rule 15(b), if a party objects at trial “that evidence is not within the issues raised in

4

the pleadings, the court may permit the pleadings to be amended. The court should freely permit

5

an amendment when doing so will aid in presenting the merits and the objecting party fails to

6

satisfy the court that the evidence would prejudice that party’s action or defense on the merits.”

7

This would not be the first time Plaintiff amended his complaint. Thus, Plaintiff had the

8

opportunity to raise these facts when he filed his First Amended Complaint, but did not do so.

9

This factor weighs against giving Plaintiff leave to amend.
The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not acted in bad faith. Accepting the facts as true,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

for the sake of argument, Plaintiff states that Defendant was close enough to hear the complaint

12

and, shortly thereafter pushed him into the holding cell wall to against Plaintiff for complaining

13

about Defendant’s behavior. The Court concludes it would not be futile to premise a First

14

Amendment Claim on those facts. These two factors weigh in favor of granting leave to amend.

15

When assessing whether a party unduly delayed in seeking leave to amend, courts focus on

16

“‘whether the moving party knew or should have known the facts and theories raised by the

17

amendment in the original pleading,’” rather than whether the motion to amend was timely filed.

18

AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 953 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting

19

Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1990)). “[L]ate amendments to assert

20

new theories are not reviewed favorably when the facts and the theory have been known to the

21

party seeking amendment since the inception of the cause of action.” Acri v. Int’l Ass’n of

22

Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 781 F.2d 1393, 1398 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).

23

However, delay alone is not sufficient to deny leave to amend. See Morongo Band of Mission

24

Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990).

25

The facts surrounding this incident have been known to Plaintiff from the inception of this

26

litigation. Thus, he could have included them in his original complaint, in his amended complaint,

27

or in his declaration in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff also did

28

not mention these facts in his deposition. (See, e.g., Docket No. 160, Def. Brief Ex. A (Deposition
3

1

of Edin S. Cast
E
tellanos at 10
07:7-109:23.) The Cour concludes Plaintiff has unduly del
rt
s
layed in

2

ass
serting these facts as a ba to suppo the First A
asis
ort
Amendment Claim.
t

3

a]
open discove and ther
ery
refore delay t proceedi
the
ings supports
As to prejudice, “[a need to reo

4

a district court’ finding of prejudice fr
d
’s
f
rom a delaye motion to amend the complaint.” Lockheed
ed
o

5

Ma
artin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9t Cir. 1999) In that case, the Ninth
v
S
c.,
th
).
h

6

Cir
rcuit affirme the district court’s dec
ed
cision to den the plainti
ny
iff’s request for leave to amend to

7

inc
clude new do
omain name registrants, because the motion was filed after d
b
s
defendants h filed a
had

8

mo
otion for sum
mmary judgm and the parties had not conduct discovery on the dom name
ment
ted
y
main

9

reg
gistrants plaintiff sough to add to the case.
t
e

10

Here, fa discovery closed on January 25, 2016. Plain first rais this issue at the
act
y
J
ntiff
sed
e

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

pre
etrial confere
ence, on June 20, 2016, a month befo trial was set to comm
fore
s
mence. Defe
endant has

12

arg
gued that if he had know that these facts would form a basis of Plaintiff First Amendment
h
wn
s
f’s

13

Cla
aim, he woul have attem
ld
mpted to find out who w on duty a the time D
d
was
at
Defendant an his partner
nd
r

14

bro
ought Plainti to the SF County Jail and would h
iff
have attempt to interv
ted
view that person.

15

De
efendant also argues that he might ha moved fo partial sum
o
ave
for
mmary judg
gment on this aspect of
s

16

the claim. (De Brief at 2:
e
ef.
:6-18, 4:15-2
27.) The Co conclude that Defen
ourt
es
ndant has sh
hown that he

17

wo
ould suffer su
ubstantial pr
rejudice if th Court wer to grant leave to amen See Lock
he
re
nd.
kheed

18

Ma
artin, 194 F.3 at 986.
3d

19

The Co conclude that Plaint
ourt
es
tiff’s undue delay, the re
esulting prejudice, and th fact that
he

20

Pla
aintiff had am
mended his complaint, weigh agains granting hi leave to a
c
w
st
im
amend. The
erefore the

21

Court DENIES Plaintiff lea to amend his compla to includ these alle
S
ave
aint
de
egations, and Plaintiff
d

22

sha not presen these facts to the jury at trial.
all
nt
s

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: July 17, 2016
,
___
__________
___________
__________
________
JEF
FFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

27
28
4