Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02157/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02157-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

----oo0oo----

DENISE SALERNO, individually

and as Administrator of the

ESTATE OF ARTHUR ANTHONY

SALERNO, JR.,

NO. CIV. S-07-2157 FCD GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COUNTY OF BUTTE, CALIFORNIA;

SHERIFF/CORONER PERRY L.

RENIFF; et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Denise

Salerno’s, individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of

Arthur Anthony Salerno, Jr. (“plaintiff”), motion to modify the

pretrial scheduling order to permit the filing of a second

amended complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Plaintiff seeks to

allege claims for relief against certain sheriff deputies,

Sergant Meyer, Officer Fuller, Officer Warren and Officer

Thornton (the “Deputies”), who plaintiff claims she originally

named as “Doe” defendants since until only recently the extent of

Case 2:07-cv-02157-FCD-GGH Document 64 Filed 01/19/10 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

these Deputies’ involvement in the subject incident was unknown.

In this action, plaintiff brings civil rights claims,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state law claims for

wrongful death, negligence and medical malpractice against the

various defendants, arising from the death of plaintiff’s

brother, Arthur Anthony Salerno, Jr., while he was booked into

custody at the Butte County Correctional Facility (“Butte County

Jail”). (FAC, filed Aug. 26, 2008 [Docket # 28].) In her

original complaint, plaintiff named the County of Butte,

Sheriff/Coroner Reniff and several CHP Officers as defendants.

Plaintiff later sought, and was granted, leave to amend her

complaint to add a state common law claim for medical malpractice

against two newly discovered defendants, California Forensic

Medical Group, Inc. (“CFMG”) and Debora Pautsch (“Pautsch”). 

(Docket #27.) 

Subsequently, plaintiff sought to add a Section 1983 claim

against CFMG and Pautsch, arguing that certain recently produced

documents revealed that CFMG and Pautsh, a nurse employed by

CFMG, were under a contract with the County of Butte to be the

sole provider of medical services to inmates at the Butte County

Jail. Plaintiff argued that this contract supported the

assertion of a Section 1983 against CFMG and Pautsch. However,

the court denied plaintiff’s motion, finding that plaintiff

failed to diligently move to amend the pretrial order since the

subject contract was produced by defendants approximately a year

prior to plaintiff’s motion. (Docket #54.)

Similarly here, defendants oppose the instant motion on the

ground that plaintiff has been aware of both the Deputies’

Case 2:07-cv-02157-FCD-GGH Document 64 Filed 01/19/10 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

1 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).

3

identities and the nature of their involvement in the incident

since early 2008. Defendants contend that in January 2008, they

disclosed the identities of these Deputies, and in March 2008,

defendants produced various investigative reports, interview

statements and videotapes which described and depicted these

officers’ respective actions and conduct in relation to the

decedent in this case.1

A pretrial order “shall not be modified except upon a

showing of good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The district

court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably

be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.

1992) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, advisory committee’s notes

(1983 amendment)). The “good cause” standard set forth in Rule

16 primarily focuses upon the diligence of the party requesting

the amendment. “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to

the party opposing the modification might supply additional

reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the

moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. If that party

was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. at 610.

Here, plaintiff cannot demonstrate good cause to permit the

instant amendment of the complaint because plaintiff has been

aware of the Deputies’ identities and known the extent of their

involvement in the incident since early 2008. (Whitefleet Decl.,

filed Dec. 31, 2009, Exs. A-C.) Even a cursory review of the

Case 2:07-cv-02157-FCD-GGH Document 64 Filed 01/19/10 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

documents disclosed by defendants reveals the respective roles of

the Deputies in handling the decedent on the day in question. 

The reports describe that after observing and considering

decedent under the influence of drugs and alcohol and

uncooperative, Sergeant Meyer directed Officers Warren, Fuller

and Thornton to put decedent in a variety of control holds, that

Officer Warren specifically held decedent’s feet, and that

Officer Fuller had his knee in decedent’s back/shoulder area for

a period of time until Sergeant Meyer told him to move his knee. 

Ultimately, Sergeant Meyer directed the officers to carry

decedent to “Sobering [cell] #1.” (Id.) The videotapes depict

the officers removing decedent from the patrol vehicle, carrying

him into the booking area, securing his feet and hands while face

down as the nurse checked his vital signs, carrying him into the

sobering cell, conducting a further pat down in the cell, and

finally performing CPR. (Id.)

“Neither ignorance nor carelessness upon the part of the

litigant or his attorney provide grounds for relief under Rule

16(b)(1).” Engleson v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 972

F.2d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, it is undisputed that

plaintiff and her counsel were in possession of the above

information in early 2008. Nonetheless, plaintiff claims that

the “full” extent of the Deputies’ involvement in the incident

was not evident until the Deputies’ depositions were taken in the

summer of 2009.

Plaintiff’s argument is unavailing. First, in August 2008,

plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (Docket #28) which

alleged that certain unnamed sheriff deputies caused decedent’s

Case 2:07-cv-02157-FCD-GGH Document 64 Filed 01/19/10 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

death by use of excessive force when they held decedent’s face

down, “interfered with his breathing, placed their body on his

head, chest and/or torso, causing [d]ecedent to asphyxiate,

sustain a cardiac arrest, and become comatose.” (FAC ¶s 16, 26.) 

These alleged facts closely resemble the facts described in the

investigative reports, interview statements and videotapes

produced by defendants. Clearly, plaintiff knew of the Deputies’

respective involvement in the incident, and she could have named

the Deputies as defendants but did not do so. Subsequently, in

the parties’ Joint Status Report filed on November 10, 2008,

plaintiff stated that she did not anticipate any further joinder

of additional parties. Plaintiff again sought leave to amend in

June 2009, but she did not move to add the Deputies as

defendants.

Contrary to plaintiff’s protestations, the documents

produced by defendants in early 2008 sufficiently revealed the

nature and extent of the Deputies’ involvement in this incident

to prompt plaintiff to move to amend her complaint to add the

Deputies as defendants. Rule 16(b) requires in the first

instance diligence. Plaintiff has failed to show that

depositions of the Deputies were required to discern a basis for

any claim for relief against them. As a result of the materials

produced in early 2008, plaintiff should have discovered the

basis for any claims against the Deputies, as their identities

were disclosed and their involvement in handling decedent was

both described in written reports and depicted on videotapes. 

That plaintiff and her counsel apparently failed to recognize the

sufficiency of this information when they received it, does not

Case 2:07-cv-02157-FCD-GGH Document 64 Filed 01/19/10 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

constitute good cause to amend the scheduling order. See Schmidt

v. Fidelity Nat’l Title Ins. Co., Civ. No. 07-356 HG-LEK, 2009 WL

1955313 (D. Hawaii June 30, 2009) (finding the allegation of the

third-party defendants that the production of the pivotal

documents was “recent” was untrue as the documents had been

produced earlier, and thus, the third-party defendants’ failure

to appreciate the significance of the documents at the time they

received them did not constitute good cause under Rule 16).

Accordingly, because the court cannot find that plaintiff

has diligently sought amendment of her pleading to name the

Deputies as defendants, her instant motion must be DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: January 15, 2010

 FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-02157-FCD-GGH Document 64 Filed 01/19/10 Page 6 of 6