Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00112/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00112-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE LEE SHAVERS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCHRIVER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-0112-DAD-JDP (P)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO AMEND BE DENIED AS FUTILE

ECF No. 47

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

REQUEST FOR SCREENING AND STAY 

ECF No. 49

Plaintiff Jesse Lee Shavers, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil 

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending is his motion for leave to file an amended 

complaint, ECF No. 47, and a copy of his proposed fourth amended complaint, ECF No. 48. For 

the reasons stated below, his motion to amend should be denied as futile. Defendants’ request for 

screening is granted, as is their request to stay their discovery responses until twenty-one days 

after this order. ECF No. 49.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) instructs courts to “freely give leave [to amend] 

when justice so requires.” See also Arizona Students’ Ass’n v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 824 F.3d 

858, 871 (9th Cir. 2016). “This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” C.F. v.

Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 985 (9th Cir. 2011). The court may decline to grant 

leave to amend only where there is a strong showing of: (1) undue delay, (2) bad faith or dilatory 

Case 2:23-cv-00112-DAD-JDP Document 50 Filed 11/14/24 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

motive, (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, (4) undue 

prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, or (5) futility of 

amendment. See Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 

(9th Cir. 2013).

Here, I find that the proposed amendment would be futile. Plaintiff brought this action 

alleging that defendant prison officials failed to protect him from an attack by another inmate. On 

September 27, 2023, I determined that the complaint stated viable Eighth Amendment failure to 

protect claims against defendants Trujillo and Schriver. ECF No. 31. Now, plaintiff has sought, 

by way of his proposed amended complaint, to add six new supervisory defendants: (1) Warden 

Chandler; (2) Associate Warden Peery; (3) Hawkins, a first level manager; (4) Colby, a shift 

supervisor; (5) Pearson, a supervisor; and (6) Bauer, a classification officer. ECF No. 48 at 2-3. 

I have reviewed the amended complaint and find that the claims against the new 

defendants are insufficient. Plaintiff alleges that, after his arrival at High Desert State Prison on 

August 1, 2020, he informed the “prison administration’s direct supervisory personnel” about the 

risk posed to him by “Charles J E,” another inmate. Id. at 4. Plaintiff claims that he did not 

receive a response to his notification from either the warden’s office or defendant Hawkins. Id. 

On August 15, 2020, inmate Charles allegedly threatened plaintiff, telling him he had only a few 

days to protect himself. Id. Plaintiff claims that, then, on August 25, 2020, Charles attacked him. 

Id. at 5. He claims that defendants Trujillo and Schriver, who were both near the location of the 

attack, were aware that he was in danger but were slow to respond. Id.

As before, plaintiff’s claims against Trujillo and Schriver are suitable to proceed. The 

claims against the newly added supervisory defendants are non-cognizable for want of specificity, 

however. Here, plaintiff alleges that he informed the various supervisory defendants of safety 

concerns regarding inmate Charles, but he does not allege specifically what he told them, how he 

conveyed that warning, or whether these defendants received the warning. Vague and conclusory 

allegations of civil rights violations are insufficient to meet pleading standards. Litmon v. Harris, 

768 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2014). While the bar is low, particularly for pro se litigants, the 

rules necessarily demand something more than an assertion that a list of officials were somehow 

Case 2:23-cv-00112-DAD-JDP Document 50 Filed 11/14/24 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

3

“informed” of the threat. To hold otherwise would allow litigants to draw in lengthy lists of 

supervisors without bringing any specific allegations against each. 

I recommend that plaintiff’s motion to amend be denied as futile and that this action 

continue against defendants Trujillo and Schriver based on the allegations in the operative 

complaint, ECF No. 30. 

In analyzing the proposed amended complaint, I necessarily grant defendants’ request for 

screening. ECF No. 49. The request to stay discovery while the motion to amend is pending is 

also granted. I will lift the stay once the district judge rules on my recommendations. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ request for screening and for stay, ECF No. 49, is GRANTED. 

2. Defendants are permitted twenty-one days from the date of this order to serve

responses to plaintiff’s discovery request. 

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion to amend, ECF No. 47, be 

DENIED as futile. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00112-DAD-JDP Document 50 Filed 11/14/24 Page 3 of 3