Brown v. Gore et al

Filing 113

ORDER Adopting 82 Report and Recommendation Regarding Plaintiff's Various Motions to Amend Complaint; Granting 53 , 59 , 69 Plaintiff's Motions for leave to Amend his Complaint to add Deputy Garcia, Henton, Pierson, Lawson, and Wh ittaker as Defendants; Denying as moot 57 Motion for Extension of Time to File; Denying 64 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint to Add Sheriff William Gore and the County of San Diego. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 10/8/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT MARK BROWN, II,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

15
16
17
18

DEPUTY #1, Deputy Sheriff; et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-cv-1938-GPC-BGS
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
VARIOUS MOTIONS TO AMEND
COMPLAINT
(ECF NO. 82)

19
20

INTRODUCTION

21

On August 8, 2012, plaintiff Robert Mark Brown, II (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner

22

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action for violations of his civil

23

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his

24

civil rights by using excessive force resulting in severe injuries. (ECF No. 1.)

25

Currently before the Court are multiple motions by Plaintiff requesting to add

26

defendants, to extend the time in which to join other parties, amend the pleadings, or

27

file additional pleading. (ECF Nos. 53, 57, 59, 64, 69.) Defendants Erick Villarreal

28

and Jason Weber (“Defendants”), filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motions. (ECF No.
12-cv-1938-GPC-BGS

1

79.) In their opposition, Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s request to file an

2

amended complaint and add deputy defendants. (Id.) Defendants, however, object to

3

Plaintiff adding the County of San Diego (“County”) and Sheriff William Gore

4

(“Gore”) as defendants because Defendants believe that Plaintiff’s claim against the

5

County and Gore is based on Plaintiff being denied access to a law library. (Id.)

6

On June 24, 2013, Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal issued a report and

7

recommendation, recommending Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement his Complaint by

8

adding Sheriff William Gore and the County of San Diego, (ECF No. 64), be

9

DENIED; Plaintiff’s Motion for leave to Amend his Complaint to add Deputy Garcia,

10

Henton, Pierson, Lawson, and Whittaker as Defendants, (ECF Nos. 53, 59, 69), be

11

GRANTED; and Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time, (ECF No. 57), be DENIED

12

as moot.

13

For the reasons set forth below, this Court: (1) ADOPTS the Report and

14

Recommendation as to Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement his Complaint by adding

15

Sheriff William Gore and County of San Diego and therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s

16

Motion to Supplement his Complaint by adding Sheriff William Gore and County of

17

San Diego; (2) ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff’s Motions for

18

leave to Amend his Complaint to add Deputy Garcia, Henton, Pierson, Lawson, and

19

Whittaker as Defendants and therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motions for leave to

20

Amend his Complaint to add Deputy Garcia, Henton, Pierson, Lawson, and Whittaker

21

as Defendants; and (3) ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff’s

22

Motion for Extension of Time and therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension

23

of Time as moot.

24

BACKGROUND

25

On August 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging

26

that Defendants violated his civil rights for, among other things, using excessive force

27

resulting in severe injuries. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not know the identities of all

28

the guards who allegedly violated his rights, so he identified them as “Deputy” in his
2

12-cv-1938-GPC-BGS

1

Complaint. (Id.) After the parties engaged in discovery, Plaintiff identified the guards

2

referenced in the Complaint and discovered the names of additional defendants that

3

allegedly violated his civil rights. (ECF Nos. 53, 59, 64, 69.) Plaintiff has since filed

4

various motions requesting leave to add the new defendants. (Id.) The Court ordered

5

Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s motions. (ECF Nos. 60, 70.) On May 24, 2013,

6

Defendants filed their Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions to Amend. (ECF

7

No. 79.)

8

A.

Motions to Add Additional Deputies as Defendants

9

On April 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to add Deputy Lauset Garcia as a

10

defendant in this action, identifying him as Doe Deputy No. 5 referenced in his

11

Complaint. (ECF No. 53.) Plaintiff alleges that Deputy Garcia was “involved in the

12

assault” against him. (Id.) On April 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to add Deputy

13

Scott Henton and Deputy Robert Pierson as defendants in this action, identifying them

14

as Doe Deputy No. 3 and Doe Deputy No. 5, respectively, referenced in his Complaint.

15

(ECF No. 59.) Plaintiff does not make any factual allegations in support of this

16

Motion. On April 30, 3013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to again add Deputy

17

Lauset Garcia as a defendant, along with two new deputies, Michael Lawson and L.

18

Wittaker. (ECF No. 69.) In support of this Motion, Plaintiff alleges that “[a]ll three

19

deputys [sic] were present on the scene of the incident on May 2, 2012 and had ample

20

[sic] opportunity to intervene in the alleged assault against [him] and did nothing to

21

stop it.” (ECF No. 69.)

22

B.

Motion to Add Sheriff William Gore and County of San Diego as

23

Defendants

24

On April 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to add Sheriff William Gore and the

25

County of San Diego as Defendants. (ECF No. 64.) In support of this motion, Plaintiff

26

alleges that “since this case is pending I have been denied physical access to the law

27

library and legal research needed in order to adequately represent myself in this case,

28

and all my grievance submitted to jail officials concerning this matter have been
3

12-cv-1938-GPC-BGS

1

denied.” (Id.)

2

C.

Motion for Second Extension of Time to Join Parties, Amend Pleadings, or

3

File Additional Pleadings

4

On April 3, 2013, Plaintiff also filed a motion for a second extension of time of

5

the deadline to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional

6

pleadings. (ECF No. 57.)

7

D.

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motions

8

On May 24, 2013, Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s motions.

9

(ECF No. 79.) While Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s request to add the deputy

10

defendants and file an amended complaint, Defendants object to Plaintiff’s request to

11

add the County of San Diego and Gore as defendants. (Id.) Defendants believe

12

Plaintiff wishes to add the County and Gore because Plaintiff wants to add a claim that

13

he was denied access to the law library in violation to his civil rights. (Id.) Defendants

14

argue that the facts which underlie Plaintiff’s new claim of denial of access to a law

15

library “do not arise out of the same operative faces as those set out in the original

16

complaint,” and therefore Plaintiff should not be allowed to amend his complaint to

17

include the claim.

18

STANDARD OF REVIEW

19

The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and

20

recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the district

21

court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which

22

objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

23

or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” Id. When no objections are

24

filed, the Court may assume the correctness of the magistrate judge’s findings of fact

25

and decide the motion on the applicable law. Campbell v. United States Dist. Court,

26

501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974); Johnson v. Nelson, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1217

27

(S.D. Cal. 2001). Under such circumstances, the Ninth Circuit has held that “a failure

28

to file objections only relieves the trial court of its burden to give de novo review to
4

12-cv-1938-GPC-BGS

1

factual findings; conclusions of law must still be reviewed de novo.” Barilla v. Ervin,

2

886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708

3

F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)).
DISCUSSION

4
5

I.

Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to

6

Supplement Complaint to Add Sheriff William Gore and the County of San

7

Diego

8

Judge Skomal recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Supplement

9

Complaint to Add Sheriff William Gore and the County of San Diego be denied.

10

Neither party has filed a specific objection to the magistrate judge’s findings or

11

conclusions as they pertain to this Motion. As such, the Court assumes the correctness

12

of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and adopts them in full.

13

The Court has conducted a de novo review, independently reviewing the Report

14

and Recommendation and all relevant papers submitted by both parties, and finds that

15

the Report and Recommendation provides a cogent analysis of the issues presented in

16

Plaintiff’s Motion. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation

17

as to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint to Add Sheriff William

18

Gore and the County of San Diego in its entirety and therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s

19

Motion.

20

II.

Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to

21

Amend to Add Deputies as Defendants

22

Judge Skomal recommends that Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to Amend to Add

23

Deputies as Defendants be granted. Neither party has filed a specific objection to the

24

magistrate judge’s findings or conclusions as they pertain to these Motions. As such,

25

the Court assumes the correctness of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and adopts

26

them in full.

27

The Court has conducted a de novo review, independently reviewing the Report

28

and Recommendation and all relevant papers submitted by both parties, and finds that
5

12-cv-1938-GPC-BGS

1

the Report and Recommendation provides a cogent analysis of the issues presented in

2

Plaintiff’s Motions.

3

Recommendation as to Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to Amend to Add Deputies as

4

Defendants in its entirety and therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motions.

5

III.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and

Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of

6

Time

7

Judge Skomal recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time be

8

dismissed as moot. Neither party has filed a specific objection to the magistrate judge’s

9

findings or conclusions as they pertain to this Motion. As such, the Court assumes the

10

correctness of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and adopts them in full.

11

The Court has conducted a de novo review, independently reviewing the Report

12

and Recommendation and all relevant papers submitted by both parties, and finds that

13

the Report and Recommendation provides a cogent analysis of the issues presented in

14

Plaintiff’s Motion. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation

15

as to Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time in its entirety and therefore DENIES

16

Plaintiff’s Motion as moot.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER

17
18

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1.

Judge Skomal’s Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff’s Motion for

20

Leave to Supplement Complaint to Add Sheriff William Gore and the

21

County of San Diego is ADOPTED in its entirety;

22

2.

William Gore and the County of San Diego, (ECF No. 64), is DENIED;

23
24

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint to Add Sheriff

3.

Judge Skomal’s Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff’s Motions for

25

Leave to Amend to Add Deputies as Defendants is ADOPTED in its

26

entirety;

27
28

4.

Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to Amend to Add Deputies as Defendants,
(ECF Nos. 53, 59, 69), are GRANTED;
6

12-cv-1938-GPC-BGS

1

5.

Extension of Time is ADOPTED in its entirety; and

2
3
4

Judge Skomal’s Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff’s Motion for

6.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time, (ECF No. 57), is DENIED as
moot.

5
6

DATED: October 8, 2013

7
8

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7

12-cv-1938-GPC-BGS