Escobedo v. Gonzales, et al.

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Plaintiffs Amended Motion to Amend Complaint (Dkt. 29 ) is GRANTED. Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 20 ) and Plaintiffs earlier Motion to Amend (Dkt. 26 ) are DEEMED MOOT. Signed by Senior Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
OMAR ESCOBEDO,

Case No. 1:23-cv-00406-BLW

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

v.
KIERA BURGIN GONZALEZ, in her
individual capacity, and in her official
capacity as an officer and employee of
the Idaho Department of Correction,
and CLINICIAN HANSEN,
SEGREGATION OFFICER JOHN
DOE, CORPORAL SMITH
SERGEANT BARROWS,
CORPORAL NOBLE, CORPORAL
BELL, AND SERGEANT
RODGERS, in their official
capacities as officers and employees
of the Idaho Department of
Corrections,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
On June 3, 2024, Defendants Hansen, Doe, Smith, Barrows, Noble, Bell, and
Rodgers filed a motion to dismiss. See Dkt. 20. Afterward, Plaintiff Omar
Escobedo filed a motion to amend, followed by an amended motion to amend. See
Dkts. 26, 29. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the last-filed

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

motion to amend, see Dkt. 29, which will moot the other two motions.
ANALYSIS
This is a prisoner civil rights action, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
plaintiff, Omar Escobedo, asserts claims of sexual abuse and excessive force under
the Eighth Amendment, as well as claims of retaliation under the First
Amendment. In the latest version of his complaint, Plaintiff sued all individuals in
their official capacities, see Dkt. 16, which prompted the above-named defendants’
motion to dismiss. These defendants correctly pointed out that government
officials “sued for damages in their official capacity are not ‘persons’ for purposes
of the suit because they assume the identity of the government that employes
them.” Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 27 (1991). In response, plaintiff asked for an
opportunity to amend his complaint in order to sue all defendants in their
individual capacities. See Proposed Third Amended Complaint, Dkt. 29, at 4-19.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs a motion to amend a pleading,
and the court is to “freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” The
Supreme Court has identified several factors district courts should consider when
deciding whether to grant leave to amend, including undue delay, bad faith or
dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowing
amendment, and futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

Of these factors, “it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that
carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d
1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). Having considered these factors, as well as the
arguments set forth in the briefing, the Court finds it appropriate to allow plaintiff
to amend his complaint as set forth in the proposed Third Amended Complaint on
file. See Dkt. 29, at 4-19.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Amend Complaint (Dkt. 29) is
GRANTED. Within 10 days of this Order, Plaintiff is directed to file
a clean, non-redlined version of the Third Amended Complaint
attached to his amended motion to amend.

2.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 20) and Plaintiff’s earlier
Motion to Amend (Dkt. 26) are DEEMED MOOT.
DATED: August 30, 2024
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3