Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01412/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01412-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

14cv1412-JLS-MDD 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. COOK, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 14cv1412-JLS-MDD 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION ON 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO REJOIN FORMER 

DEFENDANT CHAU 

PURSUANT TO RULE 21 

[ECF No. 95] 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States 

District Judge Janis L. Sammartino pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and 

Civil Local Rules 72.1(c) of the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of California. For the following reasons, the Court 

RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to rejoin J. Chau, 

M.D., (“Dr. Chau”) as a defendant pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 21 be 

DENIED. 

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 123 Filed 10/31/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 9
2 

14cv1412-JLS-MDD 

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

I. Procedural History 

Plaintiff constructively filed his complaint on June 4, 2016. (ECF 

No. 1 at). The initial complaint named Dr. Chau as a defendant. (Id.). 

The initial complaint was screened out as frivolous pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1915, but District Judge Curiel, then presiding, granted leave 

to file a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 4). 

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint, also naming Dr. 

Chau as a defendant, on February 20, 2015. (ECF No. 18). District 

Judge Curiel also dismissed this complaint as frivolous on the basis 

that it was duplicative of other pending cases, denied leave to amend as 

futile, and entered judgment. (ECF Nos. 19, 20). 

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 

22). On September 17, 2015, the Ninth Circuit found this action was 

not duplicative of the other pending actions, summarily vacated the 

dismissal order and remanded for further proceedings. (ECF Nos. 26, 

28). On October 6, 2015, the case was transferred to District Judge 

Sammartino and Magistrate Judge Dembin pursuant to the low number 

rule. (ECF No. 27). 

On October 14, 2015, District Judge Sammartino issued an order 

directing the U.S. Marshal to effect service of the First Amended 

Complaint. (ECF No. 29). 

On December 4, 2015, Lisa Freund, the Deputy Attorney General, 

executed a Waiver of Service of Summons on behalf of Defendant Dr. 

Chau. (ECF No. 41). 

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 123 Filed 10/31/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 9
3 

14cv1412-JLS-MDD 

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

On February 26, 2016, Defendants Dr. Chau, R. Davis, and D. 

Donoghue filed their Answer to the First Amended Complaint. (ECF 

No. 54). 

On March 4, 2016, this Court issued the Rule 16(b) Scheduling 

Order. (ECF No. 59). That Scheduling Order states: “Any motion to 

join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional 

pleadings shall be filed by March 29, 2016.” (Id.) (emphasis in 

original). The discovery phase commenced at the issuance of the 

Scheduling Order. 

On April 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss Defendants 

Dr. Chau, Walker and Nizamani from this action. (ECF No. 65). 

Plaintiff did not specify his reasons for dismissing these Defendants. 

On May 18, 2016, this Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff’s motion 

to dismiss these Defendants, including Defendant Dr. Chau, without 

prejudice. (ECF No. 68). 

On August 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Rejoin Former 

Defendant J. Chau, M.D., as a Party pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 21. 

In accordance with the Scheduling order, discovery closed on 

September 26, 2016. (ECF No. 59). The Court has granted a limited 

modification of that deadline to permit discovery only as to Defendant 

Cook, who recently answered the complaint. (ECF No. 118). 

II. Plaintiff’s Contentions 

Plaintiff asserts that good cause exists to rejoin Dr. Chau on the 

grounds that (1) Plaintiff’s ability to investigate and identify 

responsible defendants has been limited by his status as an indigent, 

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 123 Filed 10/31/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 9
4 

14cv1412-JLS-MDD 

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

incarcerated, pro se plaintiff, (2) this Court’s dismissal of Dr. Chau at 

Plaintiff’s request was without prejudice, (3) Dr. Chau was previously 

served and filed an Answer, (4) discovery remained open as of the date 

Plaintiff filed this motion, (5) Plaintiff will suffer prejudice if Dr. Chau 

is not rejoined to the action, and (6) Plaintiff was mistaken about Dr. 

Chau’s role in the underlying events and now believes that Dr. Chau 

“initially falsified official state medical records” to conceal that “fellow 

CDCR prison officials” violently beat Plaintiff on May 9, 2013, and Dr. 

Chau acted with deliberate indifference by housing Plaintiff in a 

contaminated housing unit, causing a staph infection of his surgical 

site, and by ignoring nursing staff observations of the serious infection. 

 Plaintiff emphasizes that the plain language of Rule 21 states 

“Parties may be dropped or added by order of the Court on motion of 

any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such 

terms as are just....” (ECF No. 95 at 9). Plaintiff does not mention Rule 

16(b) or the Scheduling Order in his motion. 

III. Legal Standard 

Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to rejoin Dr. Chau as a 

party is governed by Rules 15, 16(b)(4), and 21. 

Once the deadline for joining parties and amending pleadings set 

in the Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order has passed, no addition of parties or 

amendment of pleadings is permitted unless the movant shows good 

cause for modifying the Scheduling Order. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4); 

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

1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to amend 

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 123 Filed 10/31/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 9
5 

14cv1412-JLS-MDD 

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

where plaintiff failed to show good cause for amending the scheduling 

order). 

Rule 21 concerning “Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties,” states 

in full: 

Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an 

action. On motion or on its own, the court may at any 

time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may 

also sever any claim against a party. 

Plaintiff’s request is more appropriately considered under Rule 15 than 

Rule 21, however, the difference is largely academic because the same 

test applies to his request under either Rule. “The liberal standard of 

Rule 15 also applies to Rule 21 motions.” De Malherbe v. Int’l Union of 

Elevator Constructors, 438 F. Supp. 1121, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 1977) (citing 

Fair Housing Development Fund Corp. v. Burke, 55 F.R.D. 414, 419 

(E.D.N.Y. 1972)). The test of whether additions or subtractions of 

parties should be allowed under Rule 21, like the test under Rule 15, is 

whether such action will prejudice the non-moving party, and whether 

it will serve to avoid multiplicity of suits. Helene Curtis Indus. v. Sales 

Affiliates, 105 F. Supp. 886, 900 (S.D.N.Y. 1952), affirmed 199 F.2d 732 

(2d Cir. 1952). “[P]rejudice to the non-moving party will defeat a Rule 

21 motion.” Sable Commc’ns of Cal. Inc. v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co., 890 

F.2d 184, 191 n.13 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Helene Curtis Indus., supra). 

Rule 15(a)(2) states “[t]he court should freely give leave [to 

amend] when justice so requires.” This Rule should be applied with 

“extreme liberality.” Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emp. v. Sonoma 

Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013). Nevertheless, courts may 

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 123 Filed 10/31/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 9
6 

14cv1412-JLS-MDD 

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

decline to grant leave to amend if there is “strong evidence” 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, [or] futility of amendment, etc.” Id. (quotation omitted). 

Amendments seeking to add parties are granted less freely than 

amendments seeking to add claims. Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Nevada 

Power Co., 950 F.2d 1429, 1432 (9th Cir. 1991); see Becherer v. Merrill 

Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 43 F.3d 1054, 1069 (6th Cir. 1995) 

(amendment to add party over one year after complaint filed denied as 

too prejudicial to new party). 

IV. Discussion 

Plaintiff fails to meet his burdens under Rules 15, 16(b)(4), and 21 

to show re-joinder of the previously dismissed defendant should be 

granted. 

a. Rule 16(b)(4) 

Plaintiff, like the plaintiff in Johnson, did not move the Court to 

modify its Scheduling Order. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608. Plaintiff 

makes no effort to show good cause for modifying the Scheduling Order. 

“Good cause” means scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite a 

party’s diligence. Id., at 609. 

Plaintiff does not explain why he could not meet the scheduling 

deadline or how he was diligent in attempting to comply with the 

deadline set for joining parties. Plaintiff offers no explanation for why 

he dismissed Dr. Chau at the outset of discovery only to attempt to 

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 123 Filed 10/31/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 9
7 

14cv1412-JLS-MDD 

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

rejoin him just as the discovery phase was set to expire. For instance, 

Plaintiff does not point to any new information learned through 

discovery as the impetus for seeking to rejoin Dr. Chau. The Court 

notes there is a striking similarity between Plaintiff’s description of Dr. 

Chau’s role in his motion and Plaintiff’s allegations about Defendant 

Chau’s role in the initial complaint. (Compare ECF No. 95 at 4 with 

ECF No. 1 at 35-38 (both alleging that Dr. Chau falsified medical 

records to conceal fellow CDCR personnel’s conduct and was 

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s injuries and the risks of infection). 

This similarity weighs against a finding of diligence on Plaintiff’s part. 

Simply put, Plaintiff does not claim or attempt to show diligence 

or a reasonable excuse for the delay. Id. (“Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ 

standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the 

amendment.... If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”). 

Because Plaintiff has not shown diligence in seeking to rejoin Dr. Chau 

as required by Rule 16, this Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s 

motion be DENIED. 

b. Rules 15 and 21 

This Court further RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion be 

DENIED for unexplained delay and prejudice to the current 

Defendants and to Dr. Chau under Rules 15 and 21. 

As noted above, Plaintiff offers no explanation for why he 

dismissed Dr. Chau at the outset of discovery only to try to rejoin him 

as the discovery period expired using the very same factual basis that 

he was aware of more than two years ago. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. 

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 123 Filed 10/31/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 9
8 

14cv1412-JLS-MDD 

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

v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 953 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding 

unexplained of 15 months was a sufficient basis for denying leave to 

amend); Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 799 (9th Cir. 1991) 

(unexplained 2 year delay); Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 

1388 (1990) (unexplained 8 month delay). He does not explain why he 

did not know or should not have known of the facts forming the basis for 

rejoining Dr. Chau sooner. See Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363, 1370 (9th 

Cir. 1994) (leave to amend properly denied where movant knew or 

should have known when drafting complaint about the facts on which 

amendment based). Accordingly, the Court finds unexplained delay by 

Plaintiff in joining Dr. Chau. 

Leave to amend should also be denied to avoid substantial 

prejudice to the current Defendants and to Dr. Chau. “Prejudice is the 

touchstone of the inquiry under rule 15(a).” Eminence Capital, LLC v. 

Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotes 

omitted); and see Solomon v. North American Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 151 

F.3d 1132, 1139 (9th Cir. 1998) (leave to amend properly denied because 

motion filed “on the eve of the discovery deadline” would have required 

reopening discovery and delaying proceedings). 

Here, Dr. Chau would suffer substantial harm if added to the 

action, because he has had no meaningful opportunity to conduct 

discovery, and discovery is now complete except as to Defendant Cook, 

who recently appeared. The current Defendants could also suffer 

substantial prejudice. As in Solomon, granting leave to rejoin a new 

similarly situated defendant would require the current Defendants to 

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 123 Filed 10/31/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 9
9 

14cv1412-JLS-MDD 

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

wait while discovery is reopened and the proceedings are further 

delayed. If the Court were to issue an expedited case management 

schedule as to Dr. Chau only in order to mitigate the delay to the 

current Defendants, Dr. Chau’s due process rights would be prejudiced. 

Consequently, the Court RECOMMENDS that the motion be 

DENIED for the 2 year unexplained delay and prejudice to the current 

Defendants and Dr. Chau. 

V. Conclusion 

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court RECOMMENDS that 

Plaintiff’s motion to rejoin Dr. Chau as a defendant be DENIED. This 

Report and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States 

District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may file written objections with the court 

and serve a copy on all parties by November 18, 2016. The document 

shall be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” Any 

reply to the objections shall be served and filed by November 30, 2016. 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of 

the Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 31, 2016 

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 123 Filed 10/31/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 9