Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01225/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01225-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARNEST CASSELL WOODS, II,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1225 LKK GGH P

vs.

TOM CAREY, et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s March 3, 2006, motion for leave to file

an amended complaint. For the following reasons, this motion is denied.

“Whether leave to amend should be granted is generally determined by

considering the following factors: 1) undue delay; 2) bad faith; 3) futility of amendment; 4)

prejudice to the opposing party.” In re Rogstad, 126 F.3d 1224, 1228 (9 Cir. 1997). th

Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint naming as new defendants the

law librarian supervisor (Mr. DeLap), the law librarian (Ms. Kosher) and the law librarian officer

(Correctional Officer Stufflebeam). Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint to include

claims that these defendants violated his right to access the courts in December 2005 and January

2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 80 Filed 04/03/06 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

2

This action is proceeding on the amended complaint filed October 28, 2004. The

amended complaint contains two claims against defendants Warden Carey and Administrative

Appeals Coordinators Dickinson and Cervantes: 1) defendants violated the Eighth Amendment

by providing plaintiff with inadequate dental care; and 2) the inadequacies of the administrative

appeal process violated plaintiff’s right to due process. 

Because the alleged grounds for the proposed new claims recently occurred, the

court does not find undue delay or that plaintiff acted in bad faith. Nor does the court find futility

of amendment. However, it is clear that defendants would be prejudiced were plaintiff permitted

to amend his complaint at this time. Plaintiff’s proposed new claims are entirely unrelated to

those on which this action is proceeding. Discovery is closed and on March 6, 2006, the court

issued findings and recommendations addressing defendants’ summary judgment motion. To

permit plaintiff to amend his complaint to add these claims would significantly delay the

resolution of this action, thus prejudicing the defendants. Plaintiff should file a new civil rights

action if he wishes to litigate these new claims.

On March 17, 2006, defendants filed a request to vacate the requirement that they

file a pretrial statement. On March 24, 2006, defendants filed an amended request. Pursuant to

the July 18, 2005, scheduling order, the pretrial conference is set for March 31, 2006. The jury

trial is set for June 20, 2006. Because defendants’ summary judgment motion remains pending

before the district judge, the court will vacate these dates.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s March 3, 2006, motion for leave to file an amended complaint is

denied;

2. Defendants’ March 17, 2006, request to vacate the requirement of filing a

pretrial statement is granted;

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 80 Filed 04/03/06 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

3

3. The March 31, 2006, pretrial conference and June 20, 2006, jury trial set

before the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton are vacated; these dates will be later re-set, if

appropriate. 

DATED: 3/31/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

wo1225.ame

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 80 Filed 04/03/06 Page 3 of 3