Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01024/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01024-5/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I. Background

Plaintiff Robert A. Hardgraves (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff‟s third amended complaint, filed on September 13, 2012, against Defendant Mui for 

deliberate indifference to Plaintiff‟s medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendant 

Mui filed an answer to the third amended complaint on September 3, 2013. 

On December 30, 2013, a fourth amended complaint was lodged. (ECF No. 32.) On January 3, 

2014, the Court struck Plaintiff‟s fourth amended complaint from the record. The Court indicated that 

Defendant Mui had answered the third amended complaint and Plaintiff had neither filed a motion to 

amend nor been granted leave to amend. (ECF No. 33.)

ROBERT A. HARDGRAVES,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES D. HARTLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-001024-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 34)

Case 1:11-cv-01024-AWI-BAM Document 37 Filed 03/10/14 Page 1 of 3
2

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

On January 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file an amended complaint. 

(ECF No. 34.) Defendant Mui opposed the motion on February 4, 2014, and Plaintiff replied on 

February 14, 2014. (ECF Nos. 35, 36.) The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 

II. Discussion

A. Legal Standard

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). “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to 

amend shall be freely given when justice so requires.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, 

Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and quotation omitted). 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, 13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-

58 (9th Cir. 1999)). 

B. Analysis

Plaintiff requests leave to amend “to include the violation of federal court order that was stated 

in the original complaint.” (ECF No. 34, p. 1.) Plaintiff contends that since the filing of his third 

amended complaint, it has been determined that he was under a federal court order and that Defendant 

Mui violated the order. 

Defendant Mui opposes the request to amend for two primary reasons. First, Defendant Mui 

contends that the motion is procedurally improper because Plaintiff has failed to submit the proposed 

amended pleading. Second, Defendant Mui contends that the anticipated amendment referencing a 

federal court order is futile. In particular, Defendant Mui believes, based on the limited information 

provided in Plaintiff‟s motion, that the intended reference to a federal court order is an order issued in 

the matter of Plata v. Davis, which is not applicable to Defendant Mui. 

Case 1:11-cv-01024-AWI-BAM Document 37 Filed 03/10/14 Page 2 of 3
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

Plaintiff replies that he is a pro se litigant and the motion to amend should not be denied on 

procedural grounds because he sent a copy of his proposed fourth amended complaint to the Court. 

Plaintiff further replies that his proposed amendment is not futile. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that 

“Dr. Mui was under „color of state law‟ and applicable to Plata” and that “Dr. Mui was in fact working 

for the prison system when he denied me medical care, and applicable to Plata.” (ECF No. 36, pp. 4-

5.) 

Based on the reply, it is evident that Plaintiff is attempting to add a claim alleging that 

Defendant Mui violated a court order entered in Plata v. Davis, et al., 3:01-cv-01351-TEH, which is 

pending in the Northern District of California. However, Plaintiff may not pursue an individual claim 

for money damages against Defendant Mui in this action based on the orders issued in Plata. Coston 

v. Clark, 2014 WL 654547, *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2014). Remedial orders issued in Plata do not 

provide him with an independent cause of action under section 1983. Id.; see also Thomas v. Brown, 

2014 WL 585421, *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2014); Yocom v. Grounds, 2012 WL 2254221, *6 (N.D. Cal. 

June 14, 2012). Accordingly, Plaintiff will not be granted leave to amend because the proposed 

amendment is futile. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 951.

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff‟s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is HEREBY 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01024-AWI-BAM Document 37 Filed 03/10/14 Page 3 of 3