Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00501/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00501-43/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

RICHARD CHARLES HANNA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIPOSA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT., et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00501-AWI-SAB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AS FUTILE

(ECF No. 158)

Plaintiff Richard Charles Hanna, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

action on April 2, 2012. A scheduling order issued on November 20, 2014, opening discovery 

and establishing deadlines in this action. On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to 

amend the complaint. Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint to allege violations of his the 

right against self-incrimination and right to have an attorney present during the forced blood 

draw on April 8, 2011. Plaintiff contends that he was not read his Miranda rights at the time he 

was tasered or given the right to counsel at any time during the forced blood draw.

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s 

pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. 

Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse 

party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In this 

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 159 Filed 12/10/14 Page 1 of 3
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

instance, Defendants have filed an answer so Plaintiff may amend only with leave of the court or 

by written consent of the adverse party.

“Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so 

requires.’” Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the 

amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue 

delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id. The factor of “‘[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is 

insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.’” Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, 

Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712, 713 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 

(9th Cir. 1999)). 

Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint because he was not read his Miranda rights prior 

to being tasered nor was he advised of his right to have an attorney present during a forced blood 

draw. Since it is clear that allowing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint would be futile, the 

Court finds it unnecessary to require Defendants to file an opposition to the motion to amend. 

An individual must be informed of his right against self-incrimination and right to 

counsel prior to a custodial investigation. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966). 

However, the privilege against self-incrimination does not protect an individual from being 

compelled to produce “real or physical evidence[,]” but protects an individual “only from being 

compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise provide the State with evidence of a 

testimonial or communicative nature.” Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 589 (1990) 

(quoting Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, (1966) (overruled on other grounds by Missouri 

v. McNeeley, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1556 (2013)). The Supreme Court has held that forcing a suspect 

to provide a blood sample is outside of the privilege against self-incrimination because it is not 

testimonial in nature. Muniz, 496 U.S. at 591 (citing Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 765)). 

While Plaintiff was in custody during the incidents alleged, neither tasering Plaintiff nor 

performing a forced blood draw involve custodial interrogation. Plaintiff cannot state a claim 

that he was subjected to a custodial interrogation based upon the facts contained in the motion to 

amend. Since, Plaintiff is unable to state a Fifth Amendment claim, it would be futile to allow 

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 159 Filed 12/10/14 Page 2 of 3
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

Plaintiff to amend the complaint to include a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Similarly, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches only upon the initiation of 

criminal proceedings against the defendant or when the State’s role shifts from investigation to 

accusation. United States v. Hayes, 231 F.3d 663, 667 (9th Cir. 2000). Administering chemical 

tests to determine blood alcohol levels is investigative in nature. Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 761. 

No Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches prior to submitting to a chemical test. Robert v. 

State of Me., 48 F.3d 1287, 1290 (1st Cir. 1995); McVeigh v. Smith, 872 F.2d 725, 728 (6th Cir. 

1989); see Nyflot v. Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety, 474 U.S. 1027 (1985) 

(dismissing for lack of a substantial federal question an appeal claiming a violation of 

defendant’s Constitutional rights for failure to provide counsel prior to submitting to sobriety 

test). Since Plaintiff’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not arise prior to the blood test, 

Plaintiff cannot state a claim.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 

file an amended complaint is DENIED as futile.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 159 Filed 12/10/14 Page 3 of 3