Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01567/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01567-11/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JACKSON KITCHENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD PIERCE, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-01567-LJO-GSA-PC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

TO ADD NEW DEFENDANTS

(Docs. 60, 61, 62.)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO

FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

THE LIMITED PURPOSE DESCRIBED IN

THIS ORDER

ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND PLAINTIFF A

FORM COMPLAINT

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 William Jackson Kitchens (“plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff commenced this

action on December 5, 2005, against defendants Richard Pierce (Fresno County Sheriff),

Margaret Mimms (Fresno County Assistant Sheriff), Lieutenant Gary Johnson, and Transcor

America, LLC (“Transcor”). (Doc. 1.) 

On April 23, 2007, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order in this action

establishing a deadline of December 19, 2007 for completion of discovery, with a deadline of

October 19, 2007 to amend pleadings. (Doc. 27.) On March 25, 2008, the court extended the

Case 1:05-cv-01567-DCB Document 73 Filed 07/24/08 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

27

28

2

discovery deadline to June 30, 2008. (Doc. 59.) On April 7, 2008, plaintiff filed three separate

Motions for Permissive Joinder, requesting leave to add three new defendants – Nora Varela,

Monica Garcia, and Derrick Watkins – to this action. (Docs. 60, 61, 62.) On April 25, 2008, 

Transcor filed a response in opposition to plaintiff’s motions. (Doc. 64.) On May 12, 2008,

plaintiff filed a reply to Transcor’s opposition. (Doc. 66.) None of the other defendants have

filed an opposition or other response to plaintiff’s motions. 

II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that on August 25, 2005, he was transported from Atascadero State

Hospital to the Fresno County Jail, in the custody of the Sheriff, by agents employed by Transcor,

a company which contracts with the County of Fresno to provide transportation. En route to the

jail, plaintiff alleges he was not segregated from the prison inmates on the bus. Upon arrival at

the jail, plaintiff spent more than twelve hours in a holding cell, after which he was forced to

reside in a 45 man open dormitory with up to 44 other penal inmates for approximately 11 days. 

Plaintiff complained to custody staff that he was a “civil detainee” and should not be housed with

such inmates, which was clearly stated in the Superior Court’s Order for plaintiff’s transport

from Atascadero State Hospital. Plaintiff states he was subjected to an unclothed body search, a

visual body cavity search, and denied access to the law library. Plaintiff contends that these

actions placed his health and safety at risk and denied him due process. 

III. MOTIONS TO AMEND TO ADD NEW DEFENDANTS

On April 7, 2008, plaintiff filed three Motions for Permissive Joinder under Rule 20. 

(Docs. 60, 61, 62.) The court considers these motions as Motions to Amend the Complaint to

add new defendants and treats them as such herein.

A. Legal Standard

As noted by defendant Transcor, the Eastern District recently discussed the law applicable

to a motion to amend the complaint to add new defendants. Wolfenbarger v. Black, 2008 WL

590477 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 29, 2008). In Wolfenbarger, this court explained that a motion to amend

to add new defendants brings into consideration Rules 15, 16, and 20 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure: 

Case 1:05-cv-01567-DCB Document 73 Filed 07/24/08 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

27

28

3

Rule 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that persons may be

joined as parties if the claims against them arise out of the same transaction or

occurrence and if there is any question of law or fact common to all co-parties. 

However, Rule 15(a) vests the court with discretion to determine whether to allow

amendment to the complaint for the parties to be added. Rule 15 provides that a

party may amend its pleadings after a responsive pleading has been served, “. . .

only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party.” The Rule

further provides that such “. . . leave shall be freely given when justice so

requires.” In conjunction with Rule 15, Rule 20 allows the permissive joinder of

parties, and in particular of party defendants, “. . . if there is asserted against (the

defendants) jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect to

or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions of

occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise

in the action. Id at 2.

However, Rule 15(a) states that a court may deny an amendment where the

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

produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile. AmerisourceBergen Corp.

v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006). Rule 15(a) is further

limited by Rule 16. Once a district court has issued a pretrial scheduling order

pursuant to Rule 16, which establishes a timetable to amend pleadings, that Rule’s

standards control. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F. 2d 604, 607-

608 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, plaintiff’s ability to amend his complaint is governed

by Rule 16(b), not Rule 15(a). See Id. (citing Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83,

85 (M.D.N.C.1987)) (party seeking to amend pleading after date specified in

scheduling order must first show “good cause” for amendment under Rule 16(b),

then, if “good cause” be shown, the party must demonstrate that amendment was

proper under Rule 15); and also Financial Holding Corp. v. Garnac Grain Co., 127

F.R.D. 165, 166 (W.D. Mo.1989) (same). Id at 3.

“A court’s evaluation of good cause is not coextensive with an inquiry into the

propriety of the amendment under ... Rule 15.” Forstmann, 114 F.R.D. at 85.

Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith of

the party seeking to interpose an amendment and the prejudice to the opposing

party, the “good cause” standard of Rule 16(b) primarily considers the diligence of

the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial

schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking

the extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment);

Harrison Beverage Co. v. Dribeck Importers, Inc., 133 F.R.D. 463, 469

(D.N.J.1990); Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Detrex Corp., 132 F.R.D. 213, 217 (N.D.

Ind.1990); Forstmann, 114 F.R.D. at 85; 6A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal

Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 at 231 (2d ed. 1990) (“good cause” means

scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite party’s diligence). Moreover,

carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for

a grant of relief. Cf. Engleson v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038,

1043 (9th Cir.1992) (carelessness not a ground for relief under Rule 60(b));

Martella v. Marine Cooks & Stewards Union, 448 F.2d 729, 730 (9th Cir.1971)

(same), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 974 (1972); Smith v. Stone, 308 F.2d 15, 18 (9th

Cir. 1962) (same). 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.

See Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D.Me.1985). If

that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.

Case 1:05-cv-01567-DCB Document 73 Filed 07/24/08 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

27

28

4

B. Discussion

Plaintiff brings motions to add three new defendants to this action, Derrick Watkins

(Officer in Charge, Transcor America LLC), Monica Garcia (Subordinate Officer and Agent,

Transcor America LLC), and Nora Varela (Subordinate Officer and Agent, Transcor America

LLC). Plaintiff identifies these defendants as agents/employees of defendant Transcor, the

company responsible for transporting plaintiff from Atascadero State Hospital to the Fresno

County Jail on August 25, 2005, during which events which are the subject of plaintiff’s

complaint allegedly occurred. Plaintiff alleges that he was placed in the custody of these three

defendants who were present and participated in the clothed body search, application of

mechanical restraints, and seating of the plaintiff inside the Transcor vehicle. Plaintiff contends

that these defendants had notice of the Superior Court’s August 12, 2005 order which required

that plaintiff be segregated during transport, but they failed or refused to comply with the order

and applicable statutes, causing plaintiff to suffer injuries and the violation of his constitutional

rights.

Defendant Transcorp (“defendant”) argues that plaintiff’s motion should be denied

because it was filed nearly six months after the October 19, 2007 deadline for amending

pleadings which was set by the court’s April 23, 2007 Scheduling Order. Also, defendant

contends that plaintiff failed to comply with the warning in the court’s order advising the parties

that requests for extension of the filing deadlines “must be filed on or before the expiration of the

deadline in question.” Defendant also argues that plaintiff’s motions are prohibited under Rule

16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires him to show good cause for the

addition of new parties to the lawsuit. Defendant claims that plaintiff was made aware of the

three new defendants which he wishes to add during discovery in August of 2007 and therefore

had ample time to file his motions in a timely manner, and defendant contends that plaintiff’s

delay is the antithesis of diligent behavior.

Plaintiff replies that he diligently attempted to identify the specific agents who were in

attendance during the transport at issue. Plaintiff contends that he was unable to make such

determination during discovery because the list provided by defendant was a hodgepodge list of

Case 1:05-cv-01567-DCB Document 73 Filed 07/24/08 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

27

28

5

persons employed by Transcor, with no indication of which individuals were present in the

vehicle during plaintiff’s transport on August 25, 2005. Plaintiff maintains that he was unable to

identify the agents until he received defendant’s motion for summary judgment in 2008 with its

attached exhibits. Plaintiff acknowledges that defendant provided him with the names of the

agents in time to meet the court’s deadline for amending the pleadings, but he maintains he was

not given the information he needed to identify the specific agents who transported him. Plaintiff

argues that adding the new defendants will not prejudice the existing defendants and will serve

justice because the proper parties will be included in the action.

Here, because defendants have answered the complaint, plaintiff must obtain leave of

court or written consent of defendants before amending the complaint to add new defendants. 

As for the requirements of Rule 20, the court finds it clear that the claims against the

three new defendants arise out of the same transaction or occurrence which is the subject of

plaintiff’s action. Plaintiff’s complaint concerns, in part, the way he was treated on the bus by

agents of Transcor during transportation from Atascadero State Prison to the Fresno County Jail

on August 25, 2005. Plaintiff has identified the new defendants as the three specific agents who

accompanied him during the transport in question. Also under Rule 20, the court finds a

common question of law or fact among all co-parties presently in the action and the new

defendants. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that his rights to due process were violated by

agents of Transcor during transportation and by officers at the Fresno County Jail while he was in

custody there. The same issue – whether plaintiff’s due process rights were violated because of

the way he was treated – remains to be decided against the existing defendants and the new

defendants. Therefore, the Rule 20 requirements for adding new parties have been met.

As for Rule 16(b)'s requirement that “good cause” be shown for amendment after the

scheduling order’s deadline, the court finds that plaintiff was diligent in his efforts to identify the

specific agents who accompanied him on the bus on August 25, 2005. Plaintiff states that he

attempted to obtain the information needed during discovery, but although defendants provided

him with the names of Transcor agents, they did not identify the specific agents who were present

during plaintiff’s transport. Plaintiff contends that he did not receive the information he needed

Case 1:05-cv-01567-DCB Document 73 Filed 07/24/08 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

27

28

In light of the fact that defendants Richard Pierce (Fresno County Sheriff), Margaret Mimms (Fresno 1

County Assistant Sheriff), and Lieutenant Gary Johnson are employees of Fresno County, the court here refers to

them as the “Fresno County defendants.”

6

until defendant served its motion for summary judgment in 2008, well after the court’s October

19, 2007 deadline for amending pleadings. Therefore, plaintiff has shown good cause for

belatedly requesting amendment.

Rule 15(a) directs the court to determine whether plaintiff’s amendment would prejudice

the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, produces an undue delay in litigation, or is futile. 

Plaintiff argues that defendant Transcor would not be prejudiced by the amendment, because

Transcor may be absolved of liability if the actual persons responsible for the conduct at issue are

joined to the action, and the court so concurs. None of the defendants have opposed this

argument. As for the Fresno County defendants, the allegations against them are separate,

distinct, and apart in time from the allegations against Transcor and Transcor’s agents.

1

Therefore, the claims against the Fresno County defendants would not be prejudiced by

identifying and adding three Transcorp employees as defendants. Defendants have not made any

argument, and the court finds no evidence that plaintiff’s motion to amend was brought in bad

faith, or that the amendment would be futile. On the other hand, plaintiff’s amendment would

clearly cause delay of the litigation. If new defendants appear in the action, additional time will

be required for discovery and pre-trial motions. Plaintiff’s amendment may render his pending

motion for summary judgment moot, causing further delay. In any event, the final resolution of

this action would be delayed for months. However, 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, 712,13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 (9th

Cir. 1999)). Accordingly, the court finds no basis under Rule 15(a) to deny plaintiff’s

amendment.

C. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motions to amend shall be granted. Plaintiff shall be

granted leave to file an amended complaint for the limited purpose of adding three new

Case 1:05-cv-01567-DCB Document 73 Filed 07/24/08 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

27

28

7

defendants, Derrick Watkins, Monica Garcia, and Nora Varela, and the claims against them

arising out of plaintiff’s transportation from Atascadero State Prison to the Fresno County Jail on

August 25, 2005. 

Plaintiff is informed he must demonstrate in his amended complaint how the conditions

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v.

Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how each

named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is

some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. 

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980);

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not

for the purposes of adding new defendants relating to issues arising after December 5, 2005. In

addition, plaintiff should take care to include only those claims that have been exhausted prior to

the initiation of this suit on December 5, 2005.

Finally, plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function

in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the

involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be

clearly and boldly titled “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT,” refer to the appropriate case

number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

IV. ORDER

 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motions to add new defendants, filed on April 7, 2008, are GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of service

of this order, for the sole purpose of adding defendants Derrick Watkins (Officer

in Charge, Transcor America LLC), Monica Garcia (Subordinate Officer and

Case 1:05-cv-01567-DCB Document 73 Filed 07/24/08 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

27

28

8

Agent, Transcor America LLC), and Nora Varela (Subordinate Officer and Agent,

Transcor America LLC) and the claims against them arising from plaintiff’s

transportation from Atascadero State Prison to the Fresno County Jail on August

25, 2005;

3. The Clerk of the Court shall send one civil rights complaint form to plaintiff; and

4. Plaintiff is warned that the failure to comply with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 23, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01567-DCB Document 73 Filed 07/24/08 Page 8 of 8