Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00318/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00318-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I. INTRODUCTION

The Court held a scheduling conference on April 29, 2014. During the scheduling conference, 

Plaintiff expressed his desire to amend or supplement his complaint. Previously, on November 5, 

2013, this Court issued a scheduling order which set a deadline of January 31, 2014 for plaintiff to file 

a motion to amend. Plaintiff did not meet that deadline and now asks for permission to amend. 

Plaintiff seeks to amend or supplement the complaint to add purported new claims related to his 

former criminal defense attorney and actions by other County of Merced persons who plaintiff 

contends are involved in an overall conspiracy. For the reasons that follow, this Court DENIES 

Plaintiff‟s request to amend or supplement his complaint. 

///

///

///

EUGENE E. FORTE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF MERCED, et al.,

Defendant.

/

Case No. 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-BAM

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST TO AMEND OR 

SUPPLEMENT HIS COMPLAINT

Case 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-BAM Document 223 Filed 04/30/14 Page 1 of 6
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

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s Request to Amend His Complaint

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) is to be applied liberally in favor of amendments and, in 

general, leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. See Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 

F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994). However, because a pretrial scheduling order has been filed in this 

action regarding leave to amend, resolution of this motion to amend is governed by Rule 16 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08 (9th 

Cir. 1992); see also, Doc. 189, Order Setting Briefing Schedule on Plaintiff‟s Motion to Amend First 

Amended Complaint. “Once the district court filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 16 ... that rule's standards controlled.” Id. Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule 

may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(b)(4). 

At the November 4, 2013 scheduling conference, this Court set a briefing schedule for 

Plaintiff‟s anticipated motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 188.) The Court set the 

date at the request of Plaintiff and refrained from setting further dates. Therefore, the Court considers 

the present motion under the Rule 16 standard for amendment and secondarily under the standard of 

Rule 15(a). See Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999).

The district court is given broad discretion under Rule 16. Id. at 607. While amendment of 

pleadings is liberally granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a movant must demonstrate 

“good cause” to justify amendment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). Johnson, 975 F.2d at 

606–07. The “good cause” standard “focuses on the diligence of the party seeking amendment.” Id. at 

607 (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). 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 

(internal quotation marks omitted). “If the party seeking the modification was not diligent, the inquiry 

should end and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 

1080, 1087 (9th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition to a lack of diligence, 

“prejudice to the party opposing the modification” may supply additional reasons to deny 

modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d 609.

Case 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-BAM Document 223 Filed 04/30/14 Page 2 of 6
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

In order to demonstrate diligence, plaintiff must show whether he collaborated with the court 

in setting a schedule; whether matters that were not, and could not have been, foreseeable at the time 

of the scheduling conference caused the need for amendment; and whether the movant was diligent in 

seeking amendment once the need to amend became apparent. Id. at 608 (citations omitted). 

“[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.” 

Id. at 609. 

Plaintiff has not shown good cause to amend his complaint. During the November 4, 2013 

scheduling conference, Plaintiff expressed his desire to add numerous, unspecified claims and parties 

to this action. The Court accommodated Plaintiff, and afforded Plaintiff three months to seek 

amendment to his complaint. Nine days before Plaintiff‟s deadline to seek amendment to his 

complaint, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to extend the deadline to seek amendment. (Doc. 

196.) Plaintiff‟s request was made on the grounds that “Plaintiff has been inundated with related legal 

work countering what plaintiff would call the run-away train wreck in the Merced Superior Court;” “it 

was not foreseen that [Plaintiff] would need to be filing [a] lengthy document seeking reconsideration

[of] the denial of plaintiff participating in ECF by Magistrate Sandra Snyder [ in a different case];” 

and that it was important for Plaintiff to consider the recent resignation of his prior court appointed

counsel in his amendments. (Doc. 196.) The Court denied Plaintiff‟s ex parte application, noting that 

“Plaintiff has apparently involved himself in a number of cases, and in the process, has made choices 

to allocate time and energy to certain matters over others. Plaintiff‟s choice to file „lengthy‟ motions, 

status reports and updates in this or other matters does not absolve him of his responsibility to comply 

with the deadlines imposed by this Court.” (Doc. 201.) The Court also explained that the request is 

prejudicial to Defendants. Id. 

During the April 29, 2014 scheduling conference, Plaintiff argued he was unaware of certain 

facts relating to his previous court appointed counsel, in his criminal case, and that he could not have 

sought amendment prior to the January 31, 2013 deadline. The Court is not persuaded that this 

presents good cause. In November 2013, Plaintiff initially requested to seek amendment so he could 

add new defendants and claims. Plaintiff was given broad leeway to bring a motion to amend, yet did 

not do so. The facts Plaintiff refers to took place weeks before the deadline to amend. (See Doc. 196.) 

Case 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-BAM Document 223 Filed 04/30/14 Page 3 of 6
4

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

Regardless, Plaintiff‟s proposed amendment, alleging an overarching conspiracy with unnamed 

defendants and involving Plaintiff‟s former criminal defense attorney, are tangential to the discrete 

issues set in the pleadings. Here, the remaining defendants law enforcement officers and are alleged to 

have engaged in unlawful arrest and excessive force. As proposed by Plaintiff, he seeks to add a grand 

conspiracy theory, possibly involving the entirety of Merced County officials, former counsel, defense 

counsel and many others, none of which is at issue in this case.1 Thus, the Court rejects plaintiff‟s 

position that new facts arose since the motion to amend deadline, justifying delayed presentation of the 

facts at issue in this case.

Plaintiff also is not entitled to amendment under Rule 15(a). According to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a), leave to amend should be given freely when justice so requires. There is a presumption in favor 

of granting leave to amend under Rule 15(a). Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 

1052 (9th Cir. 2003). However, “a district court 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 litigation; 

or (4) is futile.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(citing Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir. 1999)).

The Court finds that amendment would produce an undue delay in this litigation that unfairly 

prejudices Defendants. As the Court previously stated, “defendants [have] made legitimate and 

compelling arguments that they would be prejudiced by further delay in moving this case forward. . . . 

Any further delay is entirely unreasonable and prejudicial.” (Doc. 201.) This case has been hard 

fought, and the case has just completed the pleading stage. Through extended briefing and various 

procedural delays, the pleadings are now set. Indeed, as explained above, Plaintiff proposes an 

amendment unrelated to the specific, discrete claims before the Court. Here, the claims are unlawful 

arrest and excessive force. As explained by Plaintiff at the April 29, 2014 hearing, the proposed new 

claims, if permitted, would violate Rule 18. Rule 18 provides: A party asserting a claim for relief 

may, as a matter of pleading, join as many claims as he or she has against an opposing party. Plaintiff 

does not seek to add claims against the existing, opposing parties. He seeks to add entirely different 

and new claims with new defendants and rejoin previously dismissed defendants. 

 

1

The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff believes all facts, events, and claims are interrelated and inseparable.

Case 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-BAM Document 223 Filed 04/30/14 Page 4 of 6
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

The Court also finds that Plaintiff has not been diligent is seeking amendment. Discussed 

above, despite three months to do so, Plaintiff never sought amendment to his complaint. Rather, 

Plaintiff has made the choice to file lengthy status reports, declarations and other papers in this and 

other matters that are neither requested nor helpful. 

B. Plaintiff’s Request to File a Supplemental Complaint

A supplemental complaint, which is different than an amended complaint, adds allegations to 

the complaint concerning events occurring after the original complaint was filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). 

Under Rule 15(d), “the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading 

setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be 

supplemented.” Id. A party may only file a supplemental complaint with leave of court. Id. When 

considering whether to allow a supplemental complaint, the Court considers factors such as whether 

allowing supplementation would serve the interests of judicial economy; the relatedness of the original 

and supplemental complaints; whether there is evidence of delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the 

part of the movant; whether amendment would impose undue prejudice upon the opposing party; and 

whether amendment would be futile. See San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority v. United States 

Department of the Interior, 236 F.R.D. 491, 497 (E.D.Cal. 2006) (citing Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467 

(9th Cir.1988), Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962), and Planned 

Parenthood of S. Ariz. v. Neely, 130 F.3d 400 (9th Cir. 1997)).

This Court denies Plaintiff‟s request to supplement his complaint. For the same reasons above, 

supplementation would cause delay and unfairly prejudice Defendants. Plaintiff requests that this 

matter be postponed until various other proceedings are resolved. Indeed, Plaintiff has sought to 

continue virtually every deadline imposed by this Court. (Doc. 49, 87, 145, 189, 191, 212.) Such 

uncertainty and delay cause inherent prejudice. Additionally, Plaintiff‟s proposed supplements are not

related to Plaintiff‟s complaint. Plaintiff seeks to add claims and parties concerning incidents that 

have taken place since January of 2014. However, the claims at issue in Plaintiff‟s complaint concern

a series of arrests that took place four to five years ago. Simply put, Plaintiff‟s §1983 claims against 

individuals involved in arrests dating back five years do not relate to actions taken by different 

individuals in the last three months. Permitting Plaintiff to supplement his complaint would confuse 

Case 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-BAM Document 223 Filed 04/30/14 Page 5 of 6
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

the relevant issues in this case and require the Court and the parties to litigate different claims 

stemming from a different set of facts. Thus, supplementation does not serve judicial economy. If 

Plaintiff wishes to challenge the actions taken against him in the last three months, Plaintiff is free to 

do so in a separate action. 

III. CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff‟s request to amend, or in the alternative, supplement his 

complaint, is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-BAM Document 223 Filed 04/30/14 Page 6 of 6