Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05610/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05610-0/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

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

 The proposed defendants to be added are Julia Orrantia, Dr. C. W. O’Brien, Dr. Kai Kim, Dr. A. Yin, Dr.

Thomas Vo, Dr. E. Capot, Dr. J. Baughman, and Dr. J. Moore. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD TIDWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. C. I. - CHIEF MEDICAL

OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-5610-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO AMEND

(Doc. 39) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SCAN LODGED SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT IN FULL

Plaintiff Harold Tidwell (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed July 19, 2004, against defendant Hirsch (“defendant”) for acting

with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. 

On August 23, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file a second amended

complaint adding a claim against new parties, and submitted a proposed second amended complaint.

Plaintiff seeks to add the individual members of the Medical Authorization Review Committee

(“MARC”), who allegedly violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying the treatment plan

recommended by outside dermatologist Susan Luu, M.D.1 Defendant filed an opposition to the

motion on August 30, 2005.

Case 1:04-cv-05610-AWI-LJO Document 43 Filed 09/26/05 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

2

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. 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In this case, a responsive

pleading has been served. Therefore, plaintiff may not file an amended complaint without leave of

the court. 

The policy that leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires must be applied

with extreme liberality. See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th

Cir. 1990). The court has reviewed plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint and for the

following reason finds that justice does not require that plaintiff be granted leave to amend. 

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[n]o action shall be brought with

respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are

available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirement

applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), and

“[a]ll ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not meet federal standards,

nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (citing to Booth v. Churner,

532 U.S. 731, 739 n.5 (2001)). Exhaustion of the administrative remedies must occur prior to filing

suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Plaintiff filed suit on December 10, 2003. Attached to plaintiff’s proposed second amended

complaint is a Director’s Level decision denying plaintiff’s inmate appeal grieving the MARC’s

decision, dated June 15, 2004. In a “conflict between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and the

PLRA, the rule would have to yield to the later-enacted statute to the extent of the conflict.” Harris

v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 982 (11th Cir. 2000). Rule 15 “does not and cannot overrule a substantive

requirement or restriction contained in a statute (especially a subsequently enacted one).” Id. at 983.

Allowing plaintiff to pursue a claim against the members of the MARC in this action would allow

plaintiff to thwart the mandate of section 1997e(a), which requires that claim exhaustion occur prior

to filing suit and not during the pendency of the suit. McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

Case 1:04-cv-05610-AWI-LJO Document 43 Filed 09/26/05 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

2

 Plaintiff is not precluded from bringing a new suit against the members of the MARC. Plaintiff simply

may not pursue that claim in this action.

3

All claims at issue in this action must have been exhausted by December 10, 2003.

Plaintiff’s exhibit establishes that exhaustion of his proposed claim against the MARC members

occurred on June 15, 2004, after suit was filed. Allowing plaintiff to amend to include a claim that

is barred by section 1997e(a) is futile and would serve only to tax the resources of the court and the

State of California. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to amend to add a claim against the members of the

MARC is DENIED;2 and

2. The Clerk’s Office shall scan plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint in its

entirety so that the record is complete.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05610-AWI-LJO Document 43 Filed 09/26/05 Page 3 of 3