Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04687/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04687-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFREDO RAIGOSA ARREDONDO,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS DRAGER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04687-HSG (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 17

Plaintiff, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), filed a pro se amended 

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 23, 2015, the Court found that plaintiff stated 

cognizable claims for retaliation and deliberate indifference to safety as against PBSP Correctional 

Officers Thomas Drager and Rodney Brunner. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that defendants, in 

retaliation for plaintiff’s engaging in hunger strikes and for filing prior lawsuits, moved plaintiff to 

a unit for gang debriefers and announced to other inmates that plaintiff was a gang debriefer. 

Plaintiff also attempted to name as a defendant PBSP Captain Glen W. Olson (“Olson”). 

Plaintiff’s claims against Olson were dismissed on the ground that there is no vicarious liability 

under section 1983 and plaintiff did not allege that Olson was personally involved in the 

constitutional deprivations or that there was a causal connection between Olson’s conduct and the 

constitutional violations. Plaintiff was given leave to amend the allegations against Olson if he 

could truthfully do so. 

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint to add allegations 

against Olson. In his proposed second amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that “housing 

assignment and bed moves are approved by the captain.” Dkt. No. 17 at 1. Nowhere does 

plaintiff allege that Olson ordered or approved plaintiff’s move to a debriefer unit. Plaintiff does 

Case 4:14-cv-04687-HSG Document 18 Filed 04/20/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

refer the Court to page 35 of his original complaint. However, plaintiff’s page 35 is a copy of a 

response to plaintiff’s administrative appeal, which response states that plaintiff “was not placed in 

a section that housed debriefers.” See Dkt. No. 1-1 at 10. Further, nothing in the pleadings or 

exhibits submitted by plaintiff alleges that Olson announced to other inmates that plaintiff was a 

debriefer. Accordingly, the allegations in the proposed second amended complaint are insufficient 

to state a claim against Olson, and plaintiff’s motion to amend is therefore DENIED. Further 

leave to amend will not be granted as plaintiff has already amended twice, and it appears that 

further amendments would be futile. 

Plaintiff’s January 26, 2015 amended complaint (dkt. no. 8), remains the operative 

complaint herein. The dispositive motion briefing schedule set forth in the Court’s March 23, 

2015 order (dkt. no. 15), remains in effect.

This order terminates Docket No. 17.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

4/20/2015

Case 4:14-cv-04687-HSG Document 18 Filed 04/20/15 Page 2 of 2