Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01711/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01711-8/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

CHANCELLOR WADE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1711 GEB DAD P

vs.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this action. Plaintiff presents

claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized

Persons Act (RLUIPA), as well as state negligence and breach of contract claims. This action is

proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint which was filed on May 20, 2005. 

Specifically, the second amended complaint sets forth the following seven causes

of action: (1) violation of rights under the equal protection clause; (2) violation of the RLUIPA;

(3) breach of contract; (4) first amendment violation with municipal liability; (5) first amendment

violation with supervisorial liability, (6) negligence, and (7) breach of contract by defendant 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01711-GEB-DAD Document 36 Filed 04/11/07 Page 1 of 5
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

 In his second amended complaint, plaintiff asserts that he is Muslim and that while he 1

was incarcerated at the Sacramento County Jail, he was not provided a pork-free diet and did not

receive comparable services to those provided to Christian inmates. Plaintiff names the

following eight defendants: County of Sacramento, Sheriff Lou Blanas, Chief Deputy Mark

Iawsa, Lt. Gordon Smith, Lt. Scott Jones, George Hills Company, Hills Company employee John

Joiner, and Director of Chaplins Onesimus Ortiz. 

2

George Hill Company and its employee, John Joiner. Before the court is plaintiff’s motion 1

seeking leave to file a third amended complaint. Defendants have filed opposition to the motion.

 In his proposed third amended complaint, plaintiff seeks to name the following

five additional defendants: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Roger Dickinson, Illa

Collins, Muriel Johnson, Roger Nielle, and Don Nottoli. In this regard, plaintiff seeks to amend

his complaint yet again to now allege that the individual members of the County Board of

Supervisors are the supervisors of the County Sheriff and that the Sheriff in turn has the authority

to establish jail policies. (Mot., Attach. Proposed Third Amended Compl. at 2.) Plaintiff seeks

leave to amend to name former Sheriff Blanas and the Board of Supervisor members as

defendants with respect to his constitutional and RLUIPA claims and to name the supervisors,

George Hills Company and its employee John Joiner as defendants in his state law negligence

claim. Plaintiff argues that granting him leave to once again amend his complaint will not

prejudice defendants because “[t]he proposed amendments use the same operative facts as in the

dprevious [sic] claim and do not significantly change the theory on which the case has been

proceeding.” (Mot. at 2.) Moreover, plaintiff states that his motion is brought in good faith and

he contends in conclusory fashion that he “received facts through discovery and other

independent sources that brought to bare the cupability [sic] of those particular defendant[s]

identified herein.” (Id. at 3.)

Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that with the exception of Supervisor

Collins, plaintiff named the individual Supervisors as defendants in his original complaint, 

dropped them as defendants in his amended complaint, and chose not to name them in his second

amended complaint. Thus, defendants argue that plaintiff cannot argue that he did not know

Case 2:04-cv-01711-GEB-DAD Document 36 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 5
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

 Cal. Gov. Code § 820.9 (West 2000) provides: 2

Members of city councils, mayors, members of boards of

supervisors, members of school boards, members of governing

boards of other local public entities, members of locally appointed

boards and commissions, and members of locally appointed or

elected advisory bodies are not vicariously liable for injuries

caused by the act or omission of the public entity or advisory body.

Nothing in this section exonerates an official from liability for

injury caused by that individual's own wrongful conduct. Nothing

in this section affects the immunity of any other public official.

3

about these individuals or of the purported theories of liability which he now seeks to belatedly

pursue. Citing Buckles v. King County, 191 F.3d 1127, 1133-34 (9th Cir. 1999) and Cal. Govt.

Code § 820.9 , defendants also argue that the proposed amendment would be futile since the 2

members of the County Board of Supervisors are immune from liability for their legislative acts. 

As to plaintiff’s wish to now name George Hills Company and Joiner as defendants with respect

to his negligence claim, defendants argue that plaintiff seeks this amendment only because

plaintiff admitted during his deposition that his breach of contract claim against these defendants

is subject to dismissal. Furthermore, defendants argue that plaintiff’s attempt to change his claim

against these defendants from a breach of an insurance contract to a negligence claim does not

change its character and that the proposed amendment should be denied as futile. As for

plaintiff’s other proposed amendments, defendants argue that plaintiff has already had two

opportunities to amend his complaint, defendants have incurred significant expense in taking

plaintiff’s deposition, and that plaintiff would have to be deposed again if leave to amend is

again granted.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her

pleading “once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a). Plaintiff filed his original complaint on August 20, 2004 and an amended

complaint on April 29, 2005. The court screened the amended complaint and dismissed it with

leave to amend. A second amended complaint was filed on May 20, 2005 and approved for

Case 2:04-cv-01711-GEB-DAD Document 36 Filed 04/11/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

service by the court. A responsive pleading has long ago been served. Accordingly, leave of

court is required in order for plaintiff to file a third amended complaint. Although Rule 15(a)

requires that leave “be freely given when justice so requires[,]” it is within the court’s discretion

to deny leave when there has been “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the

movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice

to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.”

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). See also Amerisourcebergen Corp. v. Dialsist West,

Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006).

The court finds the defendants’ arguments persuasive. To allow further

amendment at this late date would prejudice defendants, unduly delay this litigation which has

already been pending before the court for over two years and would likely be futile in any event. 

Thus, the interest of justice would not be served by granting plaintiff leave to amend the second

amended complaint. 

With respect to prejudice, defendants reported in their status report, filed on

February 16, 2007, that they have completed their discovery, including the taking of plaintiff’s

deposition, and that they intend to file a motion for summary judgment/adjudication of the issues

once that deposition transcript is received. Granting leave to amend would, according to

defendants, require that plaintiff be deposed once again and delay the filing of their motion. With

respect to undue delay on plaintiff’s part, the court notes that plaintiff had originally named

individual members of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors as defendants in his

complaint and then chose to omit them in his first and second amended complaints. Plaintiff

offers no explanation why he waited almost two years following the filing of his second amended

complaint, to seek leave to amend once again. Plaintiff’s earlier complaints establish that he was

aware of the operative facts with respect to his various claims and had several opportunities to

include the defendants he now wishes to name at this late date in his prior complaints. 

Amerisourcebergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 953. Finally, as argued by defendants, allowing plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01711-GEB-DAD Document 36 Filed 04/11/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

to amend his complaint yet again to name the individual members of the Board of Supervisors

and the George Hills Company and its employee John Joiner as defendants with respect to his

various claims would be futile in any event. 

The court will recommend that plaintiff’s motion be denied in light of his undue

delay in seeking leave to amend, prejudice to defendants, and futility as well as in light of the

several opportunities previously provided to plaintiff to cure deficiencies with his complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s February 23,

2007 motion for leave to file a third amended complaint be denied.

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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: April 11, 2007.

DAD:4

wade1711.mta

Case 2:04-cv-01711-GEB-DAD Document 36 Filed 04/11/07 Page 5 of 5