Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01242/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01242-1/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

 Plaintiff submitted the First Amended Complaint as an exhibit to his motion. [Doc. 55, Ex. 1.]

- 1 - 08-cv-1242-POR (JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES JOHNSON, Civil No. 08-cv-1242-POR (JMA)

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO

FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT,

DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO

EFFECT SERVICE OF FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND

SCHEDULING CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

[Docs. 55, 56] 

v.

A. FIGUEROA et al.,

Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion to File a First Amended Complaint. [Doc. 55.] 

Specifically, Plaintiff asks to amend his Complaint to accomplish the following: (1) expand

allegations against Defendant Orduno; (2) add a new Defendant, Dr. Hjerpe; and (3) “delete the

retaliation claim.” Id. In addition, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Join a Defendant to the Complaint,

which repeats the request to add Dr. Hjerpe as a Defendant. [Doc. 56.] At present, the motions are

fully briefed. Based on a review of the parties’ pleadings, the proposed First Amended Complaint,1

and for the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions to amend.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Parties’ Arguments

Plaintiff explains that he learned of new information after receiving discovery of his medical

Case 3:08-cv-01242-DHB-JMA Document 71 Filed 06/30/10 Page 1 of 4
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 - 08-cv-1242-POR (JMA)

records in October 2009. First, he discovered that Defendant Orduno had stopped scheduling his

physical therapy appointments. Thus, Plaintiff seeks to add a “one paragraph factual allegation” that

Orduno stopped scheduling his appointments. Second, Plaintiff contends there is an inconsistency

between Dr. Hjerpe’s notes in the medical records and his February 26, 2010 declaration, which

allegedly demonstrates Dr. Hjerpe’s “complicity” in the “conspiracy.”

Defendants argue Plaintiff delayed, without justification, in seeking leave to amend, and that

this untimely amendment would prejudice the defense. First, Defendants highlight that Plaintiff

requested his medical records in May 2009 from prison officials at Kern Valley State Prison, rather

than making a direct request from Defendants (employed at Calpatria State Prison). Second,

Defendants argue that Plaintiff waited over five months, after receiving his medical records, to file

his motion to amend. 

B. Analysis

Leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). 

Furthermore, “[t]his policy is applied even more liberally to pro se litigants.” Eldridge v. Block, 832

F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1987). In light of this liberal standard, the Court can consider the

following factors: “(1) undue delay, (2) bad faith, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of

amendment, and (5) whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.” Castle v. Knowles,

2010 WL 2232394, at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 3, 2010)(holding these factors apply to a pro se prisoner’s

motion to amend the complaint)(quoting factors set forth by W. Shoshone Nat'l Council v. Molini,

951 F.2d 200, 204 (9th Cir.1991)).

First, although Plaintiff delayed in filing his motion to amend, “[s]trict time limits ought not

to be insisted upon where restraints resulting from a pro se plaintiff's incarceration prevent timely

compliance with court deadlines.” Eldridge, 832 F.2d at 1136. Furthermore, the Court does not find

that Plaintiff seeks to amend in bad faith, and Defendants have failed to identify meaningful

prejudice that would result from an amendment of the complaint. Additionally, “construing

[Plaintiff’s] pleadings liberally in [his] favor,” Shaw v. County of San Diego, 2009 WL 1796532

(S.D. Cal. June 24, 2009), Plaintiff’s new allegations are not futile as a matter of law. Finally, this is

Plaintiff’s first request to amend the Complaint. In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS

Case 3:08-cv-01242-DHB-JMA Document 71 Filed 06/30/10 Page 2 of 4
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 - 08-cv-1242-POR (JMA)

Plaintiff’s motion to amend the Complaint. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion to File First Amended Complaint [Doc. 55] and Motion to Join a

Defendant to the Complaint [Doc. 56] are hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED:

1. The Clerk of Court shall file Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [Doc. 55-1] as a

new entry on the docket of this case.

2. The Clerk shall issue a summons upon Defendants as to Plaintiffs First Amended

Complaint. In addition, the Clerk shall provide Plaintiff with: (1) a blank U.S.

Marshal Form 285 for Defendants Dr. Hjerpe, T. Davis, and Sgt. Preciado; (2) a

certified copy of this Order; (3) certified copies of his First Amended Complaint and

the summons for purposes of serving Defendants. Upon receipt of this “IFP

Package,” Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285s as completely and

accurately as possible, and to return them to the United States Marshal according to

the instructions provided by the Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP package.

Thereafter, the U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the First Amended Complaint and

summons upon each Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on each Form 285.

3. Defendants are thereafter ORDERED to reply to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(a).

4. The Court schedules a Case Management Conference on August 11, 2010 at 9:30

a.m. in the chambers of the Honorable Louisa S Porter, First Floor, 940 Front Street,

San Diego, California. Defendants’ counsel shall appear in person. Furthermore,

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:08-cv-01242-DHB-JMA Document 71 Filed 06/30/10 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 08-cv-1242-POR (JMA)

Defendants’ counsel shall make arrangements with the state prison for Plaintiff to

appear telephonically. The Court authorizes Plaintiff to call into Judge Porter’s

chambers at 9:30 a.m. on the day of the conference. Plaintiff may contact chambers

at (619) 557-5383.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 30, 2010

LOUISA S PORTER

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: The Honorable Jan M. Adler

All parties

Case 3:08-cv-01242-DHB-JMA Document 71 Filed 06/30/10 Page 4 of 4