Moraga v. Minev et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 22 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ADD A DEFENDANT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 3/6/2025. (For Distribution by law library.) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - GA)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

ROY MORAGA,

5

Plaintiff,

6

v.

7

MINEV, et al.,

8

Case No. 3:23-CV-00620-ART-CLB
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO ADD A DEFENDANT
[ECF No. 22]
Defendants.

9

Before the Court is Plaintiff Roy Moraga’s (“Moraga”) motion for leave to add a

10

defendant, (ECF No. 22), in which he seeks to add Mark Hackmann, counsel for

11

Defendant Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), as a Defendant. For the

12

reasons discussed below, the Court denies the motion.

13

Mr. Hackmann is a Deputy Attorney General with the Nevada Attorney General’s

14

Office and represents the NDOC in this matter. Moraga asserts that Mr. Hackmann’s

15

“prejudicial” comments during the early inmate mediation requiring Moraga to “prove

16

deliberate indifference” as the reason why Mr. Hackmann should be added as a

17

defendant. (ECF No. 22.) This is inappropriate.

18

The Ninth Circuit has made it clear that “[w]hether the government attorney is

19

representing the plaintiff or the defendant, or is conducting a civil trial, criminal

20

prosecution or an agency hearing, absolute immunity is necessary to assure that . . .

21

advocates . . . can perform their respective functions without harassment or intimidation.”

22

Stapley v. Pestalozzi, 733 F.3d 804, 810 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted)

23

(quoting Fry v. Melaragno, 939 F.2d 832, 837 (9th Cir. 1991)). When sued in official and

24

individual capacities, the Ninth Circuit has held that an attorney general or deputy attorney

25

general has absolute immunity, except they “are not immune from any actions that are

26

wholly unrelated to or outside of their official duties.” Bly–Magee v. California, 236 F.3d

27

1014, 1016 (9th Cir.2001). Even if the Court were to assume the truth of Moraga’s

28

allegation surrounding Mr. Hackmann’s comments, such comments were made during

1

the ordinary scope of Mr. Hackmann’s duties as a Deputy Attorney General. Therefore,

2

the Court finds that Moraga lacks a basis to add Mr. Hackmann, and thus amendment

3

would be futile.

4

Further, Local Rule 15-1 requires a party to attach proposed amended pleadings

5

to a motion seeking leave of court to file an amended pleading. Here, Moraga filed a

6

motion for leave to amend, but did not attach his proposed amended pleading.

7
8
9

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Moraga’s motion for leave to add a defendant,
(ECF No. 22), is DENIED.
March 6, 2025
DATED: ______________.

10
11

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2