Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01693/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01693-22/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO DIVISION

MATTHEW B. CRAMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

TARGET CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01693-OWW-SKO

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

"MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL

AMENDED FILING TO NAME

TARGET CORPORATION (CEO) AS

SUPERIOR LIABILITY

DEFENDANT"

(Docket No. 101

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff Matthew Cramer is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and pro se with

an action for damages and other relief concerning alleged civil rights violations. Plaintiff filed his

original complaint on November 7, 2008. On December 9, 2008, the complaint was dismissed with

leave to amend. On February 17, 2009, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). In

Plaintiff's FAC, he sought compensatory and punitive damages from Michael J. Yant and Eric

Heller, two employees of Target Corporation ("Target"), an unnamed defendant referred to as the

manager of the Target store, and Tulare Police Officer, Greg Barrios. Although Plaintiff captioned

his original complaint as "Matthew B. Cramer vs. Target Corporation et al.," there were no

allegations against Target in the FAC. On May 4, 2009, the Court screened the FAC, finding one

cognizable 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim as to Defendants Heller, Yant, an unidentified supervisor who

Case 1:08-cv-01693-SKO Document 119 Filed 08/13/10 Page 1 of 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

was at the store during the alleged incident, and Officer Greg Barrios. The Court ordered service of

the FAC on the three named defendants. The Doe defendant was designated as Clebo Wheatly on

October 20, 2010, after Plaintiff learned his identity. See Doc. 24. 

On July 21, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting to add Target or Target's Chief

Executive Officer ("CEO"), Robert J. Ulrich, as a defendant to this action. On August 2, 2010,

Defendants Heller and Wheatly filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion to amend his FAC.

II. Discussion

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that leave to amend should be

freelygranted when justice requires. This policyis applied with "extraordinary liberality." Morongo

Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). Under Rule 15(a), courts

should grant leave to amend as a matter of course until a responsive pleading is filed. See Johnson

v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992). Once a response has been filed,

courts may deny leave to amend where the proposed amendment would be futile, where it is sought

in bad faith, where it will create undue delay, or where the amended complaint is subject to

dismissal. See id.; Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991). Courts may also deny

leave when "undue prejudice to the opposing party will result." Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d

1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973).

Plaintiff asserts that Target or its CEO is vicariously liable for the actions of employees

Michael Yant, Eric Heller, and Clebo Wheatly who are named defendants in this action for their

alleged conduct on March 3, 2008, in detaining Plaintiff at the Target store in Tulare, California. 

On August 2, 2010, Defendants Heller and Wheatly filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion to

amend the FAC. Defendants argue that the Court found that a Section 1983 claim cognizable in

Plaintiff's FAC, and Target cannot be held liable under the theory of respondeat superior in a Section

1983 claim. Further, Defendants argue that Target CEO Robert J. Ulrich was not present at the

Tulare Target store on March 3, 2008, and could not be liable for constitutional violations of

subordinates because he did not participate in Defendants' actions on March 3, 2008. Further, he did

not know of the violations and could not be said, therefore, to have failed to prevent any alleged

violations. 

2

Case 1:08-cv-01693-SKO Document 119 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 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

Here, responsive pleadings have been filed. Thus, Plaintiff has no right to amend as a matter

of course. The Court further finds that amendment in this case is not permissible because the

amendment that Plaintiff requests is futile and the party he seeks to add would immediately be

subject to dismissal from the action. 

In the City of Canton, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989), the United States Supreme Court held that

"[r]espondeat superior or vicarious liability will not attach under [section] 1983." Target cannot be

vicariously liable under Section 1983 for the alleged conduct of its employees. Since a Section 1983

claim against Target cannot be sustained under a theory of respondeat superior, amendment to name

Target as a Defendant would be futile. As such, even if the FAC was amended to add Target as a

party, Target would be immediately subject to dismissal from the suit. 

Further, a Section 1983 claim against Target CEO Robert J. Ulrich can only be maintained

if he is alleged to have participated in the actions of March 3, 2008, or knew that Defendants' alleged

conduct was occurring and failed to prevent it. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)

(supervisor may be held liable for constitutional violations if supervisor participating in, or directed,

the violations or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them). There are no allegations

that CEO Robert J. Ulrich was present at the Tulare, California store on March 3, 2008, that he knew

of Defendants' alleged conduct on that day, or that he failed to prevent Defendants from committing

the alleged constitutional violations. Nor is there any indication that the complaint could be

amended to add these allegations. Therefore, amending the FAC to name Robert J. Ulrich as a

Defendant is also futile, as the FAC does not provide any factual basis for his liability. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add Target or Target CEO Robert

J. Ulrich as a defendant to this action is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:08-cv-01693-SKO Document 119 Filed 08/13/10 Page 3 of 3