Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01340/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01340-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ERINEO CANO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 04-01340 PHX ROS (MEA)

)

DORA B. SCHRIRO, LEE HOLLIDAY, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PATRICIA STAPLER, ) 

)

Defendants. )

_______________________________)

TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER:

This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on referral

from the District Judge, and the determination of the Magistrate

Judge is dispositive of some of Plaintiff’s claims.

Accordingly, the following proposed findings of fact, report,

and recommendation, are made pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and 28 U.S.C. § 28(b)(1)(B) and (C).

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

amend his complaint (Docket No. 139). 

Pursuant to a scheduling order issued by the Court on

March 25, 2005, Plaintiff was allowed until September 30, 2005,

to amend his complaint. See Docket No. 55. On January 30,

2006, the Court docketed Plaintiff’s motion to amend his

complaint. Docket No. 139. Defendants opposed Plaintiff’s

Case 2:04-cv-01340-ROS-MEA Document 145 Filed 02/22/06 Page 1 of 6
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-

first motion to amend his complaint. See Docket No. 142. 

Background

Plaintiff, presently incarcerated in the Arizona State

Prison in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 28, 2004, and filed an amended

complaint on August 11, 2004. Docket No. 9. Plaintiff has been

deemed an abusive litigant, who is prohibited from filing in

forma pauperis section 1983 complaints absent a showing of

“imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Docket No. 12. 

On September 16, 2004, the Court ordered Defendants to

respond to Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants violated

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights because Defendants did not

provide Plaintiff with adequate medical treatment for his

hepatitis C. See Docket No. 12. The parties entered into

discovery and Plaintiff was deposed. The date for completing

discovery has expired, and the deadline for filing dispositive

motions was January 30, 2006. See Docket No. 128. On January

30, 2006, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment;

Plaintiff’s response to the motion is due March 2, 2006.

Plaintiff did not lodge a proposed amended complaint.

Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to allege “violations of

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)” and to add

defendants. Docket No. 139 Plaintiff also seeks leave to amend

to assert further factual allegations with regard to events

which have occurred since he filed his first amended complaint,

and Plaintiff further seeks to “have this case certified as a

class action.” Id.

Case 2:04-cv-01340-ROS-MEA Document 145 Filed 02/22/06 Page 2 of 6
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-

Analysis

Rule 15(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides

that a plaintiff should be given leave to amend his complaint

when justice so requires. See, e.g., United States v. Hougham,

364 U.S. 310, 316, 81 S. Ct. 13, 17 (1960); Howey v. United

States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973). “Thus Rule 15’s

policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied

with extreme liberality. This policy is applied even more

liberally to pro se litigants.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d

1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal citations and quotations

omitted).

However, in exercising its discretion with regard to a

motion to amend a complaint filed after a responsive pleading,

the Court should consider the prejudice to the opposing party

and the futility of allowing the amendment. See SchlachterJones v. General Tele., 936 F.2d 435, 443-44 (9th Cir. 1991).

“[T]he policy of allowing the amendments of pleadings must be

tempered with considerations of undue delay, bad faith or

dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to

cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue

prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the

amendment, futility of amendment, etc." Id. at 443 (internal

quotations omitted). The Court would eventually have to dismiss

a claim added to a complaint if the plaintiff raised a claim

that was legally frivolous or malicious, that failed to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted, or that sought monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 42

Case 2:04-cv-01340-ROS-MEA Document 145 Filed 02/22/06 Page 3 of 6
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-

U.S.C. § 1997(c)(1) (2003 & Supp. 2005).

Plaintiff’s motion to amend should be denied because it

would not facilitate a decision in this matter on the merits and

because it would cause undue delay and prejudice to Defendants.

Plaintiff states no basis on which the Court could properly find

that his claim would provide a basis for a class action suit

and, therefore, this amendment would be futile. Plaintiff’s

failure to previously amend his complaint constitutes undue

delay and, given Plaintiff’s status as a vexatious litigant, may

be construed as exhibiting a dilatory motive. 

The motion to amend should be denied with respect to

addition of an ADA claim because Plaintiff should not be allowed

to amend the complaint to state a separate cause of action with

different elements of liability after Defendants have completed

discovery and filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law

with regard to the original cause of action. 

Defendants would be unduly prejudiced should Plaintiff

be allowed to amend his complaint at this late date to add a

claim or to add defendants. Additionally, the Court’s

discretion should not be exercised to allow Plaintiff to add new

factual allegations to his complaint which would, in effect,

alter his claim for relief. Cf. Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902

F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (upholding the denial of leave

to amend because the plaintiff had delayed filing the amended

complaint for eight months beyond the time they should have

known of the existence of the claims and noting that

“[p]rejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor”

Case 2:04-cv-01340-ROS-MEA Document 145 Filed 02/22/06 Page 4 of 6
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-

in determining whether to grant leave to amend); Duggins v.

Steak ‘N Shake, Inc., 195 F.3d 828, 834 (6th Cir. 1999)

(upholding denial of leave to amend where the District Court

cited the plaintiff’s undue delay in missing the deadline to

amend the complaint and undue prejudice to the defendant where

the plaintiff sought amendment after the close of discovery);

Smith v. Angelone, 111 F.3d 1126, 1134 (4th Cir. 1997) (stating

that “a motion to amend may be denied when it has been unduly

delayed and when allowing the motion would prejudice the

nonmovant”).

Conclusion

Allowing Plaintiff to add an additional cause of action

to this suit at this time in these proceedings, which would

require further discovery, prejudice newly added defendants, and

delay the proceedings, is not in the interests of justice in

this matter. See Divkovic v. Southern California Edison Co.,

302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 

THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff’s motion to

amend his complaint (Docket No. 139) be denied.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately

appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of

appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district

court’s judgment. 

Case 2:04-cv-01340-ROS-MEA Document 145 Filed 02/22/06 Page 5 of 6
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-

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of

service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file

specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the

parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to

the objections. Failure to timely file objections to any

factual or legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be

considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate

consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S.

900 (2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual or

legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will constitute a

waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of

fact and conclusions of law in an order or judgment entered

pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 15th day of February, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01340-ROS-MEA Document 145 Filed 02/22/06 Page 6 of 6