Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01904/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01904-7/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUINCY SIMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. CABRERA,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT ON GROUNDS OF UNDUE 

DELAY AND FUTILITY

(Doc. 33)

I. Background

Plaintiff Quincy Sims (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 21, 2012. This 

action for damages is proceeding against Defendant M. Cabrera (“Defendant”) for failing to 

protect Plaintiff from the threat of harm by gang members or affiliates while he was at Kern 

Valley State Prison, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

Pursuant to the scheduling order filed on May 13, 2014, the deadline to amend the 

pleadings was November 13, 2014; and on July 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a timely motion seeking 

leave to file a second amended complaint adding facts regarding exhaustion and specifying the 

punitive damages amount sought.

1

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). (Docs. 22, 33.) Defendant filed an 

 

1 The Court’s review is limited to Plaintiff’s very brief motion because he did not include a proposed second amended 

complaint.

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 45 Filed 12/08/14 Page 1 of 5
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

opposition on August 1, 2014, and the motion was submitted on the record without oral argument 

pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). (Doc. 36.)

II. Discussion

A. Legal Standard

“Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so 

requires.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)); accord Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cnty., 

708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013). 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.” AmerisourceBergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 951; accord

Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emps., 708 F.3d at 1117. While “‘prejudice to the opposing party 

carries the greatest weight,’” Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emps., 708 F.3d at 1117 (quoting

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam)), leave 

to amend “is properly denied . . . if amendment would be futile,” Carrico v. City and Cnty. of San 

Francisco, 656 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 

1094 (9th Cir. 2010)); accord Woods v. City of San Diego, 678 F.3d 1075, 1082 (9th Cir. 2012); 

Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2011). Further, “[a] party cannot amend 

pleadings to ‘directly contradict an earlier assertion made in the same proceeding.’” Air 

Aromatics, LLC v. Opinion Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc., 744 F.3d 595, 600 (9th 

Cir. 2014) (quoting Russell v. Rolfs, 893 F.2d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir. 1990)).

B. Findings

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to add facts regarding exhaustion, in response to 

Defendant’s earlier-filed motion for judgment on the pleadings for failure to exhaust, and to 

specify he is seeking punitive damages in the amount of $60,000.00. For the reasons which 

follow, the Court finds that although the proposed amendments do not prejudice Defendant and 

are not sought in bad faith, they will produce undue delay and are futile.

2

 Given the finding on the 

 

2 All four factors are discussed with respect to the proposed amendment to add facts regarding exhaustion. The 

proposed amendment to add the punitive damages amount is not discussed in the context of prejudice or bad faith 

because the record is devoid of any indication that amendment would be prejudicial or is sought in bad faith. 

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 45 Filed 12/08/14 Page 2 of 5
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

futility factor, justice does not require Plaintiff be granted leave to file a second amended 

complaint. Carrico, 656 F.3d at 1008; Woods, 678 F.3d at 1082; Silva, 658 F.3d at 1105-06.

1. Prejudice

Although Defendant argues that amendment to add facts regarding exhaustion would be 

highly prejudicial, the Court finds there is no discernible prejudice. See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. 

General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2011) (prejudice would 

result from unfairly burdening defendant with “onerous” 733-page pleading ); AmerisourceBergen 

Corp., 465 F.3d at 951-54 (prejudice existed where potentially high, additional litigation costs 

would result from delayed amendment); Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 

1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (prejudice existed where “radical shift in direction” posed by new 

claims would have required the defendants to undertake, at a late hour, an entirely new course of 

defense); Acri v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 781 F.2d 1393, 1398-99 (9th 

Cir. 1986) (prejudice where amendment would necessitate further discovery); M/V Am. Queen v. 

San Diego Marine Constr. Corp., 708 F.2d 1483, 1491 (9th Cir. 1983) (prejudice where 

amendment would totally alter basis for action and summary judgment motion was pending). 

Defendant argues that amendment would allow Plaintiff to thwart his rightful entitlement to 

judgment on the pleadings, but his motion was brought early in the proceedings; the Court rejected 

his argument that Plaintiff’s non-exhaustion was established on the face of the amended 

complaint; and even if had found the argument meritorious, leave to amend must be granted unless 

it is clear the complaint cannot be saved by amendment. Jackson v. Barnes, 749 F.3d 755, 766-67 

(9th Cir. 2014) (district court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings and not permitting 

amendment where it was not absolutely clear the deficiencies were not curable), petition for cert. 

filed, __ S.Ct. __, __ (U.S. Nov. 11, 2014) (14-542); Harris v. Cnty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 

1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (district court erred in granting motion for judgment on the pleadings without 

giving leave to amend); Cafasso, 637 F.3d at 1058 (district court invited amendment rather than 

opposition to motion for judgment on the pleadings brought after nearly two years of discovery). 

Thus, given the procedural posture of this case and the nature and limitation of relief available 

under Rule 12(c), Plaintiff’s proposed amendment would not cause prejudice to Defendant.

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 45 Filed 12/08/14 Page 3 of 5
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

2. Bad Faith

Next, a motion to amend brought to avoid the possibility of an adverse ruling may support 

a finding of bad faith. Acri, 781 F.2d at 1398-99. However, the inquiry is fact-specific and in this 

case, the stated ground for amendment must be viewed in the context of Plaintiff’s status as a 

prisoner proceeding pro se and the procedural posture of this case. Defendant filed a motion for 

judgment on the pleadings for failure to exhaust shortly after he waived service and answered the 

amended complaint, and his argument was premised on Plaintiff’s purported concession to nonexhaustion in the amended complaint. However, Plaintiff disputed that he failed to exhaust, and 

given Defendant’s view that Plaintiff conceded non-exhaustion, he now seeks to clarify via the 

addition of facts. While such clarification is unnecessary, as discussed below, the Court is not 

persuaded that Plaintiff seeks to amend in bad faith. See id. at 1398-99 (finding of bad faith where 

motion to amend intentionally brought late to avoid adverse summary judgment ruling). Although 

Plaintiff may not amend to contradict the allegation in his amended complaint regarding 

exhaustion, Air Aromatics, LLC, 744 F.3d at 600, his desire to amend to add facts regarding 

exhaustion does not necessarily evidence bad faith in light of his minimal legal experience and 

lack of expertise.

3. Undue Delay and Futility

Turning to undue delay and futility, the Court determined that the face of Plaintiff’s 

amended complaint does not entitle Defendant to judgment, and it recommended the motion be 

denied, as previously discussed. Inmates are not required to plead or demonstrate exhaustion in 

their complaints, and the Ninth Circuit has recognized that only in rare instances will the failure to 

exhaust be apparent from the face of the complaint. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 

2014) (en banc), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 403 (2014). 

Here, Plaintiff is not seeking to add claims or parties, but rather to add facts regarding an 

issue he is not required to plead and which does not entitle Defendant to dismissal. To the extent 

Defendant moves for summary judgment for failure to exhaust in the future, that motion will be 

based on evidence, and Plaintiff will have the opportunity to oppose the motion and produce his 

own evidence in response. Plaintiff is not constrained to rely exclusively on the allegation in his 

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 45 Filed 12/08/14 Page 4 of 5
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

amended complaint, and he is free to produce additional evidence and/or explain the context of his 

allegation via his own declaration and/or other evidence.3 Thus, justice does not require leave to 

amend where the proposed amendment would lead to entirely unnecessary delay and is futile in 

that it serves no arguable purpose.

The reasoning with respect to the exhaustion allegations applies equally to the proposed 

punitive damages amendment. The federal system is one of notice pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a)(3), and “judgment should grant the relief to which the party is entitled, even if the party has 

not demanded that relief in its pleadings,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c). Plaintiff’s amended complaint 

already articulates a demand for punitive damages, and it would both cause undue delay and be 

pointless for him to amend to add the specific amount he seeks.

III. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court finds that although the proposed amendments would not prejudice 

Defendant and they are not sought in bad faith, justice does not require allowing Plaintiff to amend 

where the proposed amendments would cause undue delay and are futile in that they would add 

purely superfluous facts to the pleading. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is therefore 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

3

Plaintiff may not disavow the allegation in his amended complaint but neither would he be permitted to do so in a 

second amended complaint. Air Aromatics, LLC, 744 F.3d at 600.

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 45 Filed 12/08/14 Page 5 of 5