Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01839/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01839-4/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN VALDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

Defendants.

1:14-cv-01839-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE A 

SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT;

(2) DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

FILE FOURTH AMENDED 

COMPLAINT NUNC PRO TUNC; 

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION; 

(4) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME; 

AND

(5) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT 

SERVICE DOCUMENTS.

(ECF NOS. 52, 53, 55, 59)

Case 1:14-cv-01839-AWI-JLT Document 60 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 7
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

27

28

2

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

The following motions are now pending before the Court: (1) Plaintiff’s September 

15, 2016, motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint (ECF No. 52); (2) 

Defendants’ September 16, 2016, request for clarification (ECF No. 55); and (3) 

Defendants’ October 11, 2016, motion for extension of time to file answer (ECF No. 59). 

I. Relevant Background

Plaintiff initiated this action on November 21, 2014, and filed a first amended 

complaint (“FAC”) on January 23, 2015, before his original complaint was screened.

(ECF Nos. 1, 8.) On May 7, 2015, the FAC was screened and found to state cognizable 

claims against some Defendants but not others. Plaintiff was directed to either file an 

amended pleading or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed on the FAC as 

screened. 

On June 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”). (ECF No. 

14.) This pleading was screened on July 28, 2015, and also found to state cognizable 

claims against some Defendants but not others. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff was again 

directed to file either an amended pleading or notify the Court of his willingness to 

proceed on the SAC as screened.

Plaintiff filed the operative pleading, the third amended complaint (“TAC”), on 

August 24, 2015. (ECF No. 16.) This pleading was screened on October 15, 2015, and 

found to state cognizable due process and equal protection claims against the following 

Defendants: Beard, Castorena, Escobar, Lambert, Mahoney, Cano, Kraay, Galaviz, 

Rousseau, Gipson, Taber, Jennings, Sanchez, Pina, Pacillas, Lackovic, Smith, 

Kellogg, McGuire, Mayo, Mata, Holland, Prince, Chavez, Vasquez, Edgar, Garcia, 

Mayfield, and Patterson. (ECF No. 18.) Service was ordered November 2, 2015. (ECF 

No. 22.) 

Case 1:14-cv-01839-AWI-JLT Document 60 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 7
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

27

28

3

Defendants appeared on January 6, 2016, by filing a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 

26.) On June 21, 2016, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations to deny 

the motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff’s due process claim and to grant it as to Plaintiff’s 

equal protection claim. (ECF No. 42.)

District Judge Anthony W. Ishii adopted the findings and recommendations in part 

on September 16, 2016. (ECF No. 54.) Judge Ishii adopted the recommendation to 

dismiss the equal protection claim but found that Defendants were entitled to qualified 

immunity as to some of the conduct underlying the due process claim premised on the 

periodic reviews of Plaintiff’s placement in the Security Housing Unit (“SHU”) because of 

his gang validation. Specifically, the district judge concluded that Defendants were 

entitled to qualified immunity for conduct pre-dating Brown v. Oregon Dept. of Corr., 751 

F.3d 983 (9th Cir. Apr. 29, 2014) (the periodic reviews occurring on August 2, 2012; 

December 20, 2012; June 20, 2013; July 23, 2013; and January 28, 2014), but not as

to conduct post-dating that decision (those periodic reviews occurring on June 24, 

2014; October 6, 2014; and January 7, 2015). (ECF No. 54.) Defendants were directed 

to file an answer within thirty days from the date of that order. 

Defendants now seek clarification of Judge Ishii’s order adopting in part. (ECF No. 

55.) Since only some Defendants were involved in the conduct post-dating the Brown

decision, Defendants are inquiring as to the status of the remaining Defendants. 

Defendants have also moved for an extension of time to file their answer until resolution 

of their request for clarification. 

Plaintiff, for his part, moves for leave to file a supplemental complaint. (ECF No. 

52.) Defendants have not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to this 

motion, and the time for filing one has now passed. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(l).

II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend

The Federal Rules provide that leave to amend pleadings “shall be freely given 

when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “[T]his policy is to be applied with 

extreme liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th 

Case 1:14-cv-01839-AWI-JLT Document 60 Filed 10/18/16 Page 3 of 7
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

27

28

4

Cir. 1990) (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987)). 

However, the futility of amendment can by itself justify denial of leave to amend. Bonin v. 

Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). Amendment is futile, inter alia, where the 

applicable statute of limitations bars the proposed amendments. See Deutsch v. Turner 

Corp., 324 F.3d 692, 718 n.20 (9th Cir. 2003); Platt Elec. Supply, Inc. v. Eoff Elec., Inc., 

522 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2008).

Plaintiff moves to file a Fourth Amended Complaint to add allegations regarding 

two additional periodic reviews of his SHU placement, one on July 14, 2015, and the 

other on March 3, 2016. He also seeks to add the inmate appeal number of his 

administrative grievance and the names and addresses of the Defendants named in 

their official capacities. Lastly, he seeks to clarify the period of time that he was held in 

the SHU; Plaintiff was released to general population on April 27, 2016. Since this 

amended pleading was filed before Judge Ishii’s adoption in part of the undersigned’s 

June 21, 2016, findings and recommendations, Plaintiff also re-asserts his nowdismissed equal protection claim.

The Court has reviewed the lodged Fourth Amended Complaint and finds that 

leave to amend is appropriate. Plaintiff’s motion will therefore be granted subject to the 

following limitation: Plaintiff’s due process claim related to Defendants’ conduct that predates the Brown decision and his equal protection claim are not actionable.

III. Defendants’ Request for Clarification

The Court now turns to Defendants’ request for clarification. Pursuant to the 

Court’s October 15, 2015, Screening Order of the TAC, these Defendants were served 

with process and have appeared in this action: Beard, Castorena, Escobar, Lambert, 

Mahoney, Cano, Kraay, Galaviz, Rousseau, Gipson, Taber, Jennings, Sanchez, 

Pina, Pacillas, Lackovic, Smith, Kellogg, McGuire, Mayo, Mata, Holland, Prince, 

Chavez, Vasquez, Edgar, Garcia, Mayfield, and Patterson.

Following Judge Ishii’s adoption in part of the undersigned’s June 21, 2016, 

findings and recommendations, and considering the actionable claims asserted in the 

Case 1:14-cv-01839-AWI-JLT Document 60 Filed 10/18/16 Page 4 of 7
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

27

28

5

Fourth Amended Complaint, this case proceeds against Defendant Beard and the 

following Defendants concerning these specific incidents:

 Defendants Jennings, Holland, Prince, Pina, Galaviz, and Chavez’s

“Annual Review” of Plaintiff’s SHU placement on June 24, 2014;

 Defendant Castorena’s October 6, 2014, approval of the June 24, 2014, 

action;

 Defendants Vasquez, Holland, Garcia, Edgar, Patterson, and Mayfield’s 

“180-day review” of Plaintiff’s SHU placement on January 7, 2015;

 Defendants Davey, Holland, Romo, Patterson, and Oliveira’s “180-day 

review” of Plaintiff’s SHU placement on July 14, 2015; and

 Defendants Perez, Campbell, Wilson, and Lester’s “180-day review” of 

Plaintiff’s SHU placement on March 3, 2016.

Defendants Beard, Jennings, Holland, Prince, Pina, Galaviz, Chavez, Castorena, 

Vasquez, Garcia, Edgar, Patterson, and Mayfield have already appeared in this action

and will be directed to file an answer to the Fourth Amended Complaint.

Service has not yet been ordered on these Defendants: Davey, Romo, Oliveira, 

Perez, Campbell, Wilson or Lester. Accordingly, Plaintiff will be directed to submit 

documents necessary to effectuate service on them. 

Defendants Escobar, Lambert, Mahoney, Cano, Kraay, Rousseau, Gipson, 

Taber, Sanchez, Pacillas, Lackovic, Smith, Kellogg, McGuire, Mayo, and Mata will be 

dismissed pursuant to Judge Ishii’s Order.

IV. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint (ECF No. 52) is 

GRANTED; 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the lodged September 15, 2016, Fourth 

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 53) nunc pro tunc;

3. Defendants’ September 16, 2016, request for clarification (ECF No. 55) is 

Case 1:14-cv-01839-AWI-JLT Document 60 Filed 10/18/16 Page 5 of 7
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

27

28

6

GRANTED. Pursuant to Judge Ishii’s September 16, 2016, Order:

a. Defendants Beard, Jennings, Holland, Prince, Pina, Galaviz, Chavez, 

Castorena, Vasquez, Garcia, Edgar, Patterson, and Mayfield remain in 

this action; 

b. Defendants Escobar, Lambert, Mahoney, Cano, Kraay, Rousseau, 

Gipson, Taber, Sanchez, Pacillas, Lackovic, Smith, Kellogg, 

McGuire, Mayo, and Mata are hereby dismissed;

4. Defendants’ October 11, 2016, motion for extension of time (ECF No. 59) is 

GRANTED. Defendants are directed to file an answer to the Fourth Amended 

Complaint within fourteen days from the date of this Order;

5. In light of the allegations asserted in the Fourth Amended Complaint, service 

is appropriate for these Defendants on Plaintiff’s due process claim related to 

the periodic reviews of Plaintiff’s SHU placement: Davey, Romo, Oliveira, 

Perez, Campbell, Wilson and Lester;

6. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff seven USM-285 forms, seven 

summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet 

and a copy of the Fourth Amended Complaint filed December 10, 2015;

7. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall complete and 

return to the Court the Notice of Submission of Documents along with the 

following documents:

a. One completed summons for each Defendant listed in Paragraph 5

above,

b. One completed USM-285 form for each Defendant listed in 

Paragraph 5 above,

c. Eight (8) copies of the endorsed Fourth Amended Complaint filed 

September 15, 2016;

8. Plaintiff need not attempt service on Defendants and need not request waiver 

of service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court shall 

Case 1:14-cv-01839-AWI-JLT Document 60 Filed 10/18/16 Page 6 of 7
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

27

28

7

direct the United States Marshal to serve the above-named Defendants

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs; and

9. The failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01839-AWI-JLT Document 60 Filed 10/18/16 Page 7 of 7