Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02270/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02270-14/pdf.json

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

---

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

----oo0oo----

HEATHER MARIE EWING; MARK LEE

EWING; KATELYN JOYNER EWINGMUNNERLYN, a minor by and

through her father MARK LEE

EWING; RACHEL MARIE EWING, a

minor by and through her

parents HEATHER MARIE EWING

and MARK LEE EWING; and

SAVANNAH JAILYN EWING, a minor

by and through her parents

HEATHER MARIE EWING and MARK

LEE EWING,

NO. CIV. S-05-2270 WBS GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER RE: MOTION TO AMEND

CITY OF STOCKTON; DISTRICT

ATTORNEY JOHN D. PHILLIPS;

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

LESTER F. FLEMING; OFFICER

WILLIAM JEROME HUTTO,

individually and in his

capacity as a City of Stockton

Police Officer; OFFICER STEVEN

McCARTHY, individually and in

his capacity as a City of

Stockton Police Officer;

OFFICER JOHN J. REYES,

individually and in his

capacity as a City of Stockton

Police Officer,

Defendants.

Case 2:05-cv-02270-WBS -GGH Document 90 Filed 02/28/08 Page 1 of 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

1

 To avoid repetition, the court will refrain from

reciting the entire factual and procedural background, which

essentially remains the same as this court’s February 8, 2008

Order. Ewing v. City of Stockton, No. 05-2270, 2008 WL 366156,

at *1-5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2008). 

2 Because plaintiffs’ claims largely delineated their

allegations against defendants City of Stockton, William Jerome

Hutto, Steven McCarthy, and John J. Reyes (“city defendants”) as

distinct from their allegations against defendants Fleming and

John D. Phillips (“district attorney defendants”), defendants

filed separate motions for summary judgment in accordance with

this distinction. 

2

----oo0oo----

Currently before the court is plaintiffs Heather Marie

Ewing, Mark Lee Ewing, Katelyn Joyner Ewing-Munnerlyn, Rachel

Marie Ewing, and Savannah Jailyn Ewing’s motion to file a third

amended complaint “to reflect the facts of this case as adduced

through discovery, and to name defendant Lester F. Fleming, Jr.

in the First Cause of Action.” (Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to

Amend 2:5-6.)1

On February 8, 2008, this court granted in part and

denied in part defendants’ separate motions for summary

judgment.2

 Ewing v. City of Stockton, No. 05-2270, 2008 WL

366156, at *32-33 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2008). With respect to

plaintiffs’ claims against defendant Fleming, the court granted

his motions for summary judgment based primarily on a defense of

absolute judicial immunity. Id. at *22-24, *31. As a result,

Fleming is now dismissed from the case. In making this

determination, the court appropriately considered the entirety of

the presented evidence--including facts developed in discovery

that plaintiffs contend would subject Fleming to liability on

Case 2:05-cv-02270-WBS -GGH Document 90 Filed 02/28/08 Page 2 of 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

3 Plaintiffs’ first cause of action--under 42 U.S.C. §

1983--in their Second Amended Complaint revolves around the city

defendants’ alleged procurement of an invalid warrant and the

ensuing federal civil rights violations. (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶

42-46.) In their proffered Third Amended Complaint, plaintiffs

propose to add that “[a]s a result of the unconstitutional

execution of the warrant, HEATHER and MARK suffered further

violations to their constitutional rights in that they were

subsequently arrested for murder by the [city] DEFENDANTS on the

advice and direction of defendant FLEMING without probable cause

. . . .” (Alonso Decl. Ex. G (proposed Third Am. Compl. ¶ 45).)

4 Plaintiffs filed this motion to amend on January 16,

2008--two months after defendants filed their motions for summary

judgment and immediately prior to oral argument with respect to

those motions. Thus, plaintiffs’ filing was made in apparent

anticipation of either (1) the court’s failure to consider the

evidence developed during discovery or (2) the survival of

plaintiffs’ first cause of action with respect to Fleming.

3

their first cause of action.3 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (“The

judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,

deposition, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact . . . .”). 

Because the evidence considered in the February 8, 2008

Order demonstrates the entire scope of Fleming’s alleged role in

the arrests of Mark and Heather Ewing on murder charges, the

court has already substantively addressed the sum of plaintiffs’

proposed amendment.4

 (See Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Amend

2:6-7 (admitting that “[n]one of the proposed amendments raise

new issues”).) Thus, allowing plaintiffs to revise their Second

Amended Complaint absent a showing of new facts or legal theories

not considered by the court in its prior Order would be futile. 

See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir.

1992) (“[L]eave to amend should be granted unless amendment would

cause prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is

Case 2:05-cv-02270-WBS -GGH Document 90 Filed 02/28/08 Page 3 of 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

4

futile, or creates undue delay.”) (emphasis added);

Schlacter-Jones v. Gen. Tel. of Cal., 936 F.2d 435, 443 (9th Cir.

1991) (district court properly denied plaintiff’s motion to amend

the complaint--brought after defendant’s motion for summary

judgment had been fully briefed--due to “futility” of the

proposed amended claims), overruled on other grounds by Cramer v.

Consol. Freightways, Inc., 255 F.3d 683, 696 (9th Cir. 2001). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to

amend their Second Amended Complaint be, and the same hereby is,

DENIED.

DATED: February 26, 2008

Case 2:05-cv-02270-WBS -GGH Document 90 Filed 02/28/08 Page 4 of 4