Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00408/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00408-2/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

08cv0408-WQH (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JOHN DAUGHTERY, CDCR

#F-79985,

Plaintiff,

v.

DENNIS WILSON, San Diego Police

Officer; ESMERALDA TAGABAN, San

Diego Police Officer; SERGEANT

GRIFFIN; DETECTIVE LEMUS,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 08cv0408-WQH (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND

DENYING MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

[Doc. No. 18]

On April 30, 2008, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis with a Complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, moved

for leave to amend his Complaint. Doc. No. 18. In the same motion,

Plaintiff also requests that the Court continue certain dates set forth

in the Court’s April 17, 2008 scheduling order. Id.

The Court issued a briefing schedule for Plaintiff’s motion on May

13, 2008. Doc. No. 22. Defendants did not oppose by the deadline set

forth in the briefing schedule and the Court took the motion under

submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).

Having reviewed the briefing submitted, and for the reasons set

forth below, Plaintiff’s motion to amend his Complaint is GRANTED and

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 24 Filed 06/05/08 Page 1 of 6
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 08cv0408-WQH (BLM)

his motion to modify the Court’s April 17, 2008 scheduling order is

DENIED.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that San Diego Police Officers

Wilson and Tagaban used excessive force prior to arresting him in

violation of his constitutional rights. Doc. No. 1. He further alleges

that San Diego Police Sergeant Griffin and Detective Lemus were

“integral participants” in the allegedly unlawful beating because they

witnessed it but did nothing to intervene. Id. at 2, 4. Plaintiff sues

all four officers in both their individual and official capacities. Id.

at 2. He seeks $635,000.00 in compensatory damages and $225,000.00 in

punitive damages. Id. at 7. 

Officers Griffin and Tagaban jointly filed an Answer to the

Complaint on April 15, 2008. Doc. No. 8. Detective Lemus answered the

Complaint on May 27, 2008. Doc. No. 23. It does not appear from the

docket that Plaintiff has yet succeeded in serving Defendant Wilson.

See Doc. Nos. 7 & 15 (summons twice returned unexecuted).

LEGAL STANDARD

A. Leave to Amend the Pleadings

Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a

party may amend its pleading after the opposing party has served a

responsive pleading “only with the opposing party’s written consent or

the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Upon motion to the

court, “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”

Id. “This policy is ‘to be applied with extreme liberality.’” Eminence

Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003)

(quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712

(9th Cir. 2001)). 

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 24 Filed 06/05/08 Page 2 of 6
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 08cv0408-WQH (BLM)

The decision of whether to grant leave to amend nevertheless

remains within the discretion of the district court, which may deny

leave to amend due to “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, [and] futility of amendment.” Foman v.

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). In assessing these factors, the

consideration of prejudice should carry the greatest weight. Eminence

Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. 

B. Modifying the Scheduling Order

Dates set in a scheduling order may be modified “for good cause and

with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Doc. No. 11

(scheduling order stating that dates may be modified for “good cause”).

The Rule 16 “good cause” standard focuses on the “reasonable diligence”

of the moving party. Noyes v. Kelly Services, 488 F.3d 1163, 1174 n.6

(9th Cir. 2007); Coleman v. Quaker Oats Company, 232 F.3d 1271, 1294

(9th Cir. 2000) (Rule 16(b) scheduling order may be modified for “good

cause” based primarily on diligence of moving party). However, a court

may also consider the “existence or degree of prejudice to the party

opposing the modification.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d

604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

DISCUSSION

A. Amending the Complaint

Plaintiff seeks to amend his Complaint to add the San Diego Police

Department and the City of San Diego as defendants. Mot. to Amend at 4.

Additionally, because Plaintiff alleges that the extent and severity of

his physical injuries and the likelihood of long-term effects were not

factored into his original damage estimate, Plaintiff seeks to increase

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 24 Filed 06/05/08 Page 3 of 6
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 Because Plaintiff sought leave to amend prior to the deadline for doing so

set forth in this Court’s order, Rule 16(b)(4) is not implicated in this Court’s

analysis of Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the Complaint. 

4 08cv0408-WQH (BLM)

his prayer for compensatory damages to $2.5 million. Id. He also asks

the Court’s permission to increase the punitive damages request to $1.5

million. Id. As previously noted, Defendants have not opposed

Plaintiff’s motion. 

While motions for leave to amend are measured by several factors,

prejudice is the “touchstone of the inquiry under Rule 15(a),” and

absent prejudice or a strong showing of any of the remaining factors,

there exists a presumption in favor of granting leave to amend.

Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citations and quotations omitted).

To justify denying leave to amend, prejudice to the non-moving party

must be substantial. See e.g. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose,

893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (denying leave to amend dismissed

complaint two years after original complaint’s filing where new claims

were legally tenuous and “would have greatly altered the nature of the

litigation and required defendants to [undertake] an entirely new course

of defense”). Here, Defendants have not opposed or in any way asserted

that they would be prejudiced by the proposed amendments. Additionally,

it has been less than two months since the Court issued a scheduling

order regulating discovery and pretrial proceedings and none of the

discovery deadlines have passed (see Doc. No. 11), so Defendants would

not be prejudiced as a result of the stage of the proceedings. In fact,

Plaintiff filed his motion several weeks in advance of the May 26, 2008

deadline this Court set for amending the pleadings.1

 Id. Thus, this

Court does not find that Defendants would be unduly prejudiced if

Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his Complaint.

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 24 Filed 06/05/08 Page 4 of 6
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 Plaintiff appears to be under the belief that he need not begin discovery

until counsel is appointed. See Mot. to Amend at 1-4. However, this Court has twice

denied Plaintiff’s requests for appointment of counsel. See Doc. Nos. 14 & 21.

Plaintiff is reminded that he is responsible for conducting discovery, responding to

discovery, and complying with all applicable rules, laws and court orders.

5 08cv0408-WQH (BLM)

The Court also does not find that any of the other factors weigh

against granting Plaintiff leave to amend. His motion was timely filed

and there is nothing in the pleadings to suggest bad faith or dilatory

motive. See Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. While the bases for Plaintiff’s

claims against the San Diego Police Department and the City of San Diego

are less than clear from his motion, the Court cannot say at this stage

that these claims would be futile. Therefore, the Court finds the

justice requires that Plaintiff’s motion be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a)(2).

B. Modifying the Scheduling Order

Plaintiff also asks that the deadlines set forth in this Court’s

April 17, 2008 Case Management Conference Order Regulating Discovery and

Other Pretrial Proceedings [Doc. No. 11] (“Scheduling Order”) be

continued for an unspecified period of time. Mot. to Amend at 1-3.

Again, Defendants did not oppose this motion.

As previously noted, both this Court’s Scheduling Order and Rule 16

require a showing of good cause to justify modification of the discovery

and pretrial schedule. Plaintiff has set forth nothing more than

speculation as to possible problems he may, but has not yet, encountered

in complying with the present schedule. Mot. to Amend at 1-3. In fact,

Plaintiff has not alleged that he has even begun engaging in the

discovery process.2 See Noyes, 488 F.3d at 1174 n.6 (moving party must

show that he has acted with reasonable diligence in attempting to comply

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 24 Filed 06/05/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6 08cv0408-WQH (BLM)

with the scheduling order). Under the present discovery schedule,

Plaintiff still has sufficient time to comply with all of his

obligations. Therefore, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has

shown good cause to modify the Scheduling Order. 

CONCLUSION 

For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to amend his Complaint

is GRANTED. On or before July 1, 2008, Plaintiff shall file a First

Amended Complaint that incorporates the existing Defendants and claims

and only the amendments requested in Plaintiff’s motion and set forth

above. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint must be complete in and of

itself without reference to the prior pleading. See CivLR 15.1.

Defendants not named and all claims not re-alleged in the First Amended

Complaint will be deemed to have been waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Plaintiff’s motion to modify the Scheduling Order is DENIED. All

dates and deadlines remain as previously set. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 5, 2008

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO: 

HONORABLE WILLIAM Q. HAYES

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 24 Filed 06/05/08 Page 6 of 6