Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01238/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01238-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1238 FCD GGH P

vs.

LIEUTENANT J. FLINT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s June 6, 2007, motion for leave to file an

amended complaint. Attached to the motion is the proposed amended complaint. On June 14,

2007, defendants filed an opposition to the motion. For the following reason, plaintiff’s motion

is granted in part and denied in part.

Claims on Which This Action is Proceeding

This action is proceeding on the amended complaint filed October 5, 2006, as to

defendants Blackburn, Cervantes, Flint, Hill, Holmes, Kernan, Leiber, Malfi, Mayfield, O’Brian,

Smith and Ybarra. Plaintiff alleges that following his transfer to California State PrisonSacramento (CSP-Sac) in December 2004, he was improperly classified as a gang

member/affiliate. Through 2005, defendants failed to respond to his appeals regarding this issue. 

Case 2:06-cv-01238-FCD-GGH Document 73 Filed 08/07/07 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

On May 25, 2005, plaintiff was informed that he was being transferred to a

different building. During the transfer process, plaintiff became emotionally distressed and

requested to be seen by a mental health professional. Defendants denied this request. Plaintiff

then attempted to kill himself. 

On June 1, 2005, plaintiff was released from mental health housing and taken to

disciplinary segregation, where he was “advertised” as a gang member. On June 2, 2005,

plaintiff was released to the general population where he was improperly housed with a gang

member. Plaintiff again suffered mental distress and was admitted to the mental health crisis

unit. 

Proposed Amendments

The proposed second amended complaint includes all of the claims contained in

the operative amended complaint. The proposed second amended complaint names 14 new

defendants: Mendoza, Zuber, Rios, Wenkler, Jibb, Wilson, Overstreet, Walker, Baughman,

Ramos, Bishop, Colvin, Hobart and Lopez. The proposed second amended complaint includes

new allegations regarding events occurring before and after the filing of the second amended

complaint on October 5, 2006. Therefore, plaintiff seeks to both amend and supplement his

complaint.

Events Occurring Before October 5, 2006

The claims contained in the proposed amended complaint regarding events

occurring before October 5, 2006, are as follows. Plaintiff alleges that in May 2006 he

complained to defendant Overstreet that the administrative appeal system was defective. 

Proposed Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 74. On June 29, 2006, defendants Winkler and Bishop

falsely accused plaintiff of being out of bounds and ordered him to submit to a strip search. Id., ¶

81. On June 29, 2006, defendant Hobart charged plaintiff with refusing to submit to a strip

search, for which he was assessed 30 days loss of credits. Id., ¶ 88.

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-01238-FCD-GGH Document 73 Filed 08/07/07 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

On July 17, 2006, plaintiff helped inmate Wright prepare a group appeal regarding

defendant Wenkler’s ongoing mistreatment of African American inmates. Id. ¶ 89. Defendants

Wenkler and Bishop interviewed plaintiff regarding the appeal. Id., ¶ 90. Defendant Bishop

became enraged with plaintiff during the interview, and ordered him placed into a holding cage

which was 90 degrees inside. Id., ¶ 91. Defendants Malfi and Leiber obstructed plaintiff’s

administrative appeals regarding this incident. Id., ¶ 92. 

On August 11, 2006, defendant Leiber and Baughman ordered defendant Holmes

to bar plaintiff from C facility and transfer him to B facility in retaliation for plaintiff’s legal

activities. Id., ¶ 93. Prior to the transfer, defendant Holmes told plaintiff, “you’ve made some

serious allegations against us to the court, so now we’re going to send you somewhere where you

can answer for the reason you got kicked out of the gang, and if you refuse I’m putting you in the

hole.” Id. ¶ 94. 

After the transfer to B Facility, plaintiff suffered mental distress. Id., ¶ 96. On

August 18, 2006, defendant Ramos interviewed plaintiff regarding his transfer to B Facility. Id.,

¶ 98. Defendant Ramos told plaintiff that he was placed in segregation for safety concerns, to

which plaintiff responded that this was a bogus reason. Id., ¶ 98. Defendant Ramos ordered

plaintiff placed into a holding cage. Id., ¶ 99. After being abandoned in the holding cage,

plaintiff cut his wrists. Id., ¶ 101. On approximately August 26, 2006, plaintiff was admitted to

the mental health crisis unit. Id., ¶ 103. During this time, defendant Mendoza destroyed

plaintiff’s personal property. Id., ¶ 104. 

Events Occurring After October 5, 2006

On October 26, 2006, defendants Mendoza, Rios and Zuba locked plaintiff in a

holding cage for over five hours, during which time they verbally abused him. Id., ¶¶ 108, 109. 

While in the holding cage, defendant Baughman denied plaintiff’s request to see a doctor

regarding his leg. Id., ¶ 110. On November 6, 2006, plaintiff filed an administrative appeal

regarding defendant Mendoza. Id., ¶ 111. 

Case 2:06-cv-01238-FCD-GGH Document 73 Filed 08/07/07 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 In their opposition, defendants discuss only the standard for motions for leave to 1

amend. 

4

In December 2006, defendants Malfi and Mayfield told plaintiff to contact

defendant Jubb regarding his appeals concerning his improper classification as a gang member. 

Id., ¶ 112. In January 2007, defendant Jubb told plaintiff to provide him with the probation

report, on which the gang member classification was based. Id., ¶ 114. Plaintiff gave defendant

Jubb the report. Id., ¶ 115. In March 2007, plaintiff asked defendant Jubb to remove the gang

classification. Id., ¶ 115. Defendant Jubb threatened to increase plaintiff’s classification score if

he insisted on pressing his point. Id. 

Between September 2006 and December 2006, defendant Mendoza abandoned his

post to harass plaintiff. Id., ¶ 116. In November 2006, defendant O’Brian improperly processed

plaintiff’s appeal regarding defendant Mendoza’s conduct. Id., ¶ 117. In March 2007, defendant

Walker authorized defendant O’Brian to have plaintiff placed into administrative segregation. 

Id., ¶ 121. 

Discussion

The standard used to evaluate proposed amended complaints and supplemental

complaints are similar. The court considers five factors in evaluating a motion for leave to file 1

an amended complaint: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of

amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. Johnson v.

Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004).

Courts have broad discretion in allowing supplemental pleadings under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(d):

Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for...supplemental

pleading. It is a useful device, enabling a court to award complete relief, or more

nearly complete relief, in one action, and to avoid the cost, delay and waste of

separate actions which must be separately tried and prosecuted. So useful they are

and of such service in the efficient administration of justice that they ought to be

allowed as of course, unless some particular reason for disallowing them appears,

though the court has the unquestioned right to impose terms upon their allowance

Case 2:06-cv-01238-FCD-GGH Document 73 Filed 08/07/07 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Plaintiff alleges that he was transferred to B Facility in retaliation for his legal activities 2

and that prior to the transfer, defendant Holmes told him that he would have to answer for why

he was kicked out of the gang. Plaintiff does not allege that his transfer was based on his

improper classification as a gang member. 

5

when fairness appears to require them.

*****

...The clear weight of authority, however, in both the cases and the commentary,

permits the bringing of new claims in a supplemental complaint to promote the

economical and speedy disposition of the controversy...

Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473 (9th Cir. 1988).

However, supplementation may not be used “to introduce a separate, distinct and

new cause of action.” Planned Parenthood of S. Ariz. v. Neely, 130 F.3d 400, 40-03 (9th Cir.

1997). 

The court first considers plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint to include

claims regarding events occurring before October 5, 2006. As discussed above, the gravamen of

the operative amended complaint is the claim that plaintiff was improperly labeled as a gang

member, and the resulting injuries he suffered. The claims raised in the proposed second

amended complaint regarding events occurring before October 5, 2006, are not directly related to

these events.

2

In his reply to defendants’ opposition, plaintiff argues that he could not include

the new claims in his operative amended complaint as they were only recently administratively

exhausted. While this may not constitute “bad faith” on plaintiff’s part, the court is unwilling to

allow plaintiff to amend his complaint every time he exhausts a new and unrelated claim. This

will significantly delay resolution of this action, prejudicing both the court and defendants. This

factor outweighs any other factor weighing in favor of amendment. Accordingly, the motion to

amend to include the claims regarding events occurring before October 5, 2006, is denied. 

Plaintiff must file a new action if he wishes to proceed with these claims.

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-01238-FCD-GGH Document 73 Filed 08/07/07 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

The court now turns to the proposed new claims regarding events occurring after

October 5, 2006. The only new claim relating to the events raised in the operative amended

complaint is that defendant Jubb refused to remove the gang classification after plaintiff provided

him with the probation report. These allegations state a colorable claim for relief against

defendant Jubb. Accordingly, the motion to supplement the complaint to include this claim is

granted. However, because the other claims concern separate and distinct causes of action, the

motion to supplement to include these claims should be denied.

In the opposition defendants argue that plaintiff should not be allowed to amend

or supplement his complaint because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies regarding

this claim prior to filing this action. Administrative exhaustion is an affirmative defense rather

than a pleading requirement. Wyatt v. Terhune, 305 F.3d 1033, 1044 (9th Cir. 2002). Therefore,

denial of a motion for leave to amend or to supplement on this ground is not proper. In any

event, defendants’ assertion that plaintiff may not proceed with related claims exhausted after the

filing of this action is not so clear. 

The court will deem the answer filed by defendants Blackburn, Cervantes, Flint,

Hill, Holmes, Kernan, Leiber, Malfi, Mayfield, O’Brian, Smith and Ybarra to the original

complaint as responsive to the supplemental complaint. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 6, 2007, motion for leave to amend is granted as to the claim

that defendant Jubb refused to remove the gang classification; the motion to amend is denied in

all other respects;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff 1 USM-285 forms, one summons,

an instruction sheet and a copy of the second complaint filed June 6, 2007;

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-01238-FCD-GGH Document 73 Filed 08/07/07 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form; and 

d. Two copies of the endorsed second complaint filed June 6, 2007.

DATED: 8/7/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

will1238.supp

Case 2:06-cv-01238-FCD-GGH Document 73 Filed 08/07/07 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1238 FCD GGH P

vs.

LIEUTENANT J. FLINT, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

____________________________________/

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Complaint/Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-01238-FCD-GGH Document 73 Filed 08/07/07 Page 8 of 8