Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00408/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-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

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

CLARENCE L. HEARNS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

A. HEDGPETH, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-00408-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 15.)

I. BACKGROUND

Clarence L. Hearns (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on February 13, 2013 at the U.S. District Court for the Northern 

District of California. (Doc. 1.) On June 4, 2013, the court dismissed the Complaint with leave 

to amend. (Doc. 9.) On June 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 

10.) The court screened the First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 

issued an order on October 4, 2013, dismissing defendants Terrance, Hedgpeth, Jensen, 

Medina, Halderman, Noland, and Perez from this action with prejudice, and transferring the 

case to the Eastern District of California. (Doc. 11.)

On April 3, 2014, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 14.) 

Case 1:14-cv-00408-BAM Document 16 Filed 08/21/14 Page 1 of 3
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

Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 

California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as 

reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

On August 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended 

Complaint. (Doc. 15.) 

II. LEAVE TO AMEND – RULE 15(a)

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the 

party=s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written 

consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Id. 

ARule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend >shall be freely given when justice so 

requires.=@ AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 

2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts Aneed 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 the litigation; or (4) is futile.@ Id. The factor of A>[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is 

insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.=@ Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, 

Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712,13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 

(9th Cir. 1999)). Because Plaintiff has already amended the complaint once, and he does not 

have Defendants’ consent to amend, Plaintiff requires leave of court to file a Second Amended 

Complaint. 

A. Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to add newly discovered facts, to “resume this 

action against defendants Hedgpeth, warden at Salinas Valley State Prison and Correctional 

Sergeant Jensen at Salinas Valley State Prison.” (Motion at 1.) Plaintiff asserts that since these 

defendants were dismissed from the First Amended Complaint, he has received documentary 

evidence that Salinas Valley State Prison’s R&R had actual possession of Plaintiff’s legal 

property since September 12, 2010. 

///

Case 1:14-cv-00408-BAM Document 16 Filed 08/21/14 Page 2 of 3
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

B. Discussion

As noted above, defendants Hedgpeth and Jensen were dismissed from this action by 

the Northern District of California, with prejudice, before the case was transferred to this 

district. 

First, because defendants Hedgpeth and Jensen were dismissed with prejudice in the 

Northern District of California, Plaintiff may not add those defendants to this case or proceed 

with his prior claims against them. Second, venue for Plaintiff’s claims arising from events at 

Salinas Valley State Prison, where defendants Hedgpeth and Jensen are employed, are not 

proper in this district because Salinas Valley State Prison is located in the Northern District of 

California, and those claims may not be pursued in this action. For these reasons, it would be 

futile for Plaintiff to bring these claims again in a Second Amended Complaint.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion for leave to 

amend, filed on August 18, 2014, is DENIED as futile.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00408-BAM Document 16 Filed 08/21/14 Page 3 of 3