Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01655/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01655-50/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

LOUIS BRANCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. UMPHENOUR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:08-cv-01655-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S 

REQUEST TO FILE AN AMENDED

COMPLAINT/SUPPLEMENTAL 

PLEADING

(ECF No. 211)

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action on July 7, 2008. 

Following the order addressing Defendants‟ motion for summary judgment on September 4, 

2015, this action is proceeding on the third amended complaint, filed July 10, 2013, against 

Defendants Umphenour, Szalai, and Alvarez for deliberate indifference to a serious risk to 

Plaintiff‟s safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendant Umphenour for 

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, in their individual capacities. (ECF Nos. 103, 

180.) On June 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint or 

supplemental pleading. (ECF No. 211.) On this same date and after a hearing held on June 1, 

2016, the Court issued the trial scheduling order setting the trial in this action for January 17, 

Case 1:08-cv-01655-SAB Document 241 Filed 10/05/16 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

2017, with a trial confirmation hearing set for December 2, 2016.

1

 (ECF No. 215.) . 

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, once a scheduling order 

has issued, the schedule may be modified only for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 

Therefore, the moving party must first demonstrate that good cause exists for the modification of 

the scheduling order and, if good cause is shown, the party must demonstrate that the proposed 

amendment is proper under Rule 15. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 

608 (9th Cir.1992).

III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint or supplement to the complaint to add 

Dr. Schaffenberg and Registered Nurse Mendivil as defendants in this action under Rule 15 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, once the scheduling order has issued in the 

action, amendment is governed by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

“Rule 16(b)‟s „good cause‟ standard 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.‟ ” Johnson, 975 F.2d 

at 609 (citations omitted). Further, carelessness is insufficient to demonstrate diligence and is 

not a ground for relief. Id. If the party seeking to file an amended complaint does not 

demonstrate diligence, the inquiry should end. Id.

Plaintiff does not address the good cause standard required by Rule 16 to allow 

amendment of the complaint. Plaintiff states that he recently discovered the names of the 

individuals identified as doe defendants in his complaint. Pursuant to the most recent scheduling 

order, the deadline to amend the pleadings in this action was April 21, 2014, and all discovery 

was to be completed by June 21, 2014. (ECF No. 120.) Plaintiff has not explained why he 

 

1 By separate order, the Court is continuing the pretrial confirmation hearing due to the Court‟s unavailability to 

December 5, 2016. 

Case 1:08-cv-01655-SAB Document 241 Filed 10/05/16 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

waited more than two years after the deadline to amend the complaint and discovery in this 

action had closed to move to amend his complaint. Plaintiff has not shown that he was diligent 

in seeking to amend the scheduling order in this action. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown good cause exists to amend the 

scheduling order in this instance. Plaintiff‟s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is 

denied.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff‟s motion for leave to file an amended complaint or 

supplemental pleading is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01655-SAB Document 241 Filed 10/05/16 Page 3 of 3