Crawford v. Kernan et al

Filing 54

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 51 Plaintiff's Motion To Supplement the Amended Complaint; and Granting him a Second Extension of Time to File Opposition. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2019)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

CHRISTOPHER LEE CRAWFORD,
Plaintiff,

5
v.
6
7

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-03089-YGR (PR)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE
AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND
GRANTING HIM A SECOND
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
OPPOSITION

8
9
I.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. The operative complaint in this action is the amended complaint, in which Plaintiff
alleged constitutional rights violations at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) where he was
previously incarcerated. Dkt. 28 at 1-2. Plaintiff named the following Defendants at PBSP and
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”): CDCR Secretary Scott
Kernan; PBSP Captain M. Townsend; PBSP Sergeant Combs; and PBSP Correctional Officers
Oviatt and Spradlin. Dkt. 28 at 1-2; Dkt. 27 at 1. Specifically, Plaintiff claims arose from
Defendants’ alleged deliberate indifference to his safety needs stemming from an incident on April
13, 2016 in which Defendants Combs and Spradlin were interviewing Plaintiff relating to “his
alleged safety concerns” when they “deliberately forced Plaintiff out of his cell” and asked him in
front of other inmates whether he wanted to be housed at the Special Needs Yard (“SNY”). Dkt.
28 at 1-2. Plaintiff also alleged that Defendants Oviatt and Townsend took part in “conspiracies to
entrap[] [him] [by] deliberately questioning him in front of other general population inmates”
regarding his desire to be housed at SNY. Id. at 1. Plaintiff is seeking declaratory relief and
monetary damages. Id. at 2-3.
On January 14, 2019, the Court found that Plaintiff’s amended complaint stated a
cognizable claim that Defendants Combs, Spradlin, Oviatt, and Townsend were deliberately
indifferent to Plaintiff’s safety needs. Dkt. 31 at 2-3. The Court ordered service of the amended

1

complaint on the aforementioned Defendants, directed them to file a dispositive motion, and set a

2

briefing schedule. Id. at 3-7. Meanwhile, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s supervisory liability

3

claim against Defendant Kernan. Id. at 3.
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, motion to file under seal

4
5

confidential investigatory and medical records, and motion to stay discovery. Dkts. 41, 42, 45.

6

To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

7

Plaintiff’s opposition was due by October 16, 2019. See Dkt. 44. Instead, Plaintiff has filed a

8

motion for leave to supplement the amended complaint as well as a request for a second extension

9

of time to file his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 51. Defendants have
filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s request to file a supplement to the amended complaint, and a non-

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

opposition to Plaintiff’s second extension of time request. Dkt. 52. For the reasons outlined

12

below, the Court DENIES the motion for leave to supplement the amended complaint and

13

GRANTS Plaintiff a second extension of time within which to file an opposition.

14
15

II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s proposed 61-page supplemental complaint, with 90 pages of exhibits, asserts

16

multiple new claims against 11 newly named defendants, related to allegations of First

17

Amendment retaliation, Fifth Amendment “due process,” Eighth Amendment violations, and

18

defamation, slander, and libel causes of action that allegedly took place while Plaintiff was housed

19

at California State Prison - Sacramento (CSP-Sacramento) in 2018 and 2019. See Dkt. 51-1. All

20

but one of the newly named defendants are employed at CSP-Sacramento, and the other remaining

21

Defendant is former CDCR Secretary Kernan, who as mentioned has been dismissed from the

22

instant action. Dkt. 51-1 at 3-4. The Court notes that in his supplemental complaint, Petitioner

23

does not mention any of the original four named Defendants from PBSP, and none of the new

24

allegations are related to the alleged incident at PBSP.

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that leave to amend a complaint should

26

be “freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Four factors are commonly

27

used to determine the propriety of a motion for leave to amend. These are: bad faith, undue delay,

28

prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment.” Ditto v. McCurdy, 510 F.3d 1070,
2

1

1079 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The decision to grant or

2

deny a request for leave to amend rests in the discretion of the trial court. See California v. Neville

3

Chem. Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004).

4

Here, the pertinent facts persuade the Court that granting leave to file a supplemental

5

complaint is unwarranted. As an initial matter, Plaintiff unduly delayed in bringing his motion.

6

On January 14, 2019, the Court reviewed the amended complaint, found that Plaintiff had stated a

7

cognizable Eighth Amendment claim, and served the aforementioned Defendants. Dkt. 31. Yet,

8

Plaintiff waited until October 15, 2019 before filing his motion to supplement his amended

9

complaint. This delay suggests bad faith, given that Plaintiff filed his motion after both the
deadlines set by the Court had passed for Defendants’ dispositive motion and has almost passed

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

for his opposition, which was due one day later on October 16. Cf. Acri v. Int’l Ass’n of

12

Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 781 F.2d 1393, 1398 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming denial of leave

13

to amend where plaintiff delayed in bringing a proposed claim as a tactical matter to avoid the

14

possibility of an adverse summary judgment ruling).

15

The proposed supplemental complaint also is futile. Plaintiff’s claims in his supplemental

16

complaint bear no relationship to his deliberate indifference to safety needs claim against

17

Defendants Combs, Spradlin, Oviatt, and Townsend. Thus, joining the newly-identified parties

18

would be improper. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) (permitting joinder of parties to “assert any right to

19

relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction,

20

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and [¶] . . . any question of law or fact

21

common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.”). In any event, Plaintiff complains of various

22

problems during his incarceration at CSP-Sacramento, which is located within the venue of the

23

Eastern District of California. Thus, any claims stemming from events at CSP-Sacramento that

24

Plaintiff is attempting to bring before this Court would not have been filed in the proper venue.

25

Instead, Plaintiff may consider refiling them in a new civil rights action in the United States

26

District Court for the Eastern District of California.

27

Finally, the Court finds that permitting Plaintiff leave to file the proposed supplemental

28

complaint would by unduly prejudicial to Defendants. Defendants timely filed their motion for
3

1

summary judgment based on the claims which the Court found cognizable in its Order of Partial

2

Dismissal and Service. To allow Plaintiff to pursue improperly joined claims based on an entirely

3

different set of circumstances at this late stage of the action would undoubtedly be prejudicial,

4

particularly given that the dispositive motion deadline has passed. Cf. Acri, 781 F.2d at 1398

5

(affirming denial of motion for leave to amend on the ground that “allowing amendment would

6

prejudice the [defendant] because of the necessity for further discovery”).
The factors germane to Court’s exercise of discretion under Rule 15 militate against

7
8

granting leave to file a supplemental complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

9

supplement the amended complaint is DENIED. Dkt. 51.
As mentioned above, Plaintiff has also filed a request for a second extension of time in

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

which to file his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Having read and

12

considered Plaintiff’s request, and good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s request for a second extension

13

of time is GRANTED. Dkt. 51. The parties are directed to abide by the briefing schedule outlined

14

below. The Court notes that this is the second extension granted to Plaintiff in this case. The

15

granting of regular requests for extensions should not be expected.

16

III.

CONCLUSION

17

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

18

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to supplement the amended complaint is DENIED, and

19

his request for a second extension of time is GRANTED. Dkt. 51. The time in which Plaintiff

20

may file his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be extended up to and

21

including twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order. Defendants shall file a reply brief

22

no later than fourteen (14) days after the date Plaintiff’s opposition is filed.

23
24

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the other remaining motions will

be resolved in a separate written Order.

25

3.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

This Order terminates Docket No. 51.

Dated: November 22, 2019

______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Judge
4