Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00666/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00666-24/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

MARCUS R. ELLINGTON, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0666 DFL KJM P

vs.

E.S. ALAMEIDA, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has “struck out” within the meaning of the Prisoner Litigation

Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) . Nevertheless, this court found portions of his

amended complaint satisfied the “imminent danger” exception to the three strikes provisions of

the PLRA, recognizing that those portions “state a cognizable claim for relief under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)” and directed service on defendants Rohlfing, Salenger and

Exum for alleged acts or omissions relating to plaintiff’s medical care. 5/18/2005 Order.

On January 24, 2007, this court issued findings and recommendations,

recommending that defendant Salenger and Rohlfing’s motion for summary judgment be granted

and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied. Defendant Exum’s motion for summary

judgment is pending. 

Case 2:04-cv-00666-RSL-JLW Document 172 Filed 05/23/07 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

2

On February 12, 2007 plaintiff filed a motion “to cure deficiency in pleading”

and on April 16, 2007, he filed a motion “to strike defendant’s improper filings.” These matters

are before the court.

I. Motion To Cure Deficiency

In granting Rohlfing’s motion for summary judgment, the court determined, in

part, that Rohlfing did not order plaintiff’s wheelchair removed and that plaintiff’s bare assertion

that Rohlfing issued the order did not defeat summary judgment. 1/24/07 Findings and

Recommendations at 10. In this motion to cure the “deficiency” in the complaint, plaintiff seeks

to amend to allege that custodial personnel told plaintiff that Rohlfing ordered the wheelchair

removed and/or that Rohlfing ordered other doctors to remove plaintiff’s wheelchair. Mot. at 1. 

He also suggests that he would amend to allege that Rohlfing was the proximate cause of the

order removing the wheelchair. Reply at 1. 

In addition, plaintiff claims that despite his “three strikes” status, he has satisfied

the filing fee and is thus free to add claims “against Rohlfing’s supervisors” for hiring him. Mot.

at 2. 

Neither point is well taken. 

“Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave

to amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and

whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d

1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). In this case, several of the factors support the decision not to permit

the amendment. First, plaintiff has delayed in seeking to amend; the action was filed in April

2004, yet plaintiff has not explained why he did not notice this “deficiency” in his pleadings

until now. Second, it appears that the amendment is offered in bad faith. Plaintiff had the

opportunity to submit a declaration in opposition to summary judgment containing these claims,

but chose not to do so. Third, amending to include what correctional officers told plaintiff would

not “cure the pleading deficiency,” for it offers only a hearsay account of Rohlfing’s order to

Case 2:04-cv-00666-RSL-JLW Document 172 Filed 05/23/07 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

3

remove plaintiff’s wheelchair. Fourth, the proposed amendment, coming after the close of

discovery and the resolution of the motion for summary judgment, would prejudice the

defendant. Kalsi v. New York City Transit Authority, 62 F.Supp.2d 745, 761 (E.D.N.Y. 1998). 

Plaintiff cannot amend or supplement his complaint to add claims that are not

based on imminent danger even though the filing fee may now be completely paid in

installments. To avoid the application of the “three strikes” provisions to his complaint, plaintiff

was required to pay the full filing fee at the time the action was filed. Dupree v. Palmer, 284

F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002).

II. Motion To Strike

Plaintiff seeks to strike “all of the unapproved and unauthorized document

submitted for filing on: March 6, 2007. That 1) EXCEED THOSE PERMITTED BY MOTION

PRACTICE; and 2) prejudice plaintiff.” (Reproduced as in original.) 

On March 6, 2007, defendant Exum filed a reply to plaintiff’s opposition to

Exum’s motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary

judgment, objections to plaintiff’s statement of undisputed facts, a statement of undisputed facts,

a declaration and exhibits in support of the opposition to plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary

judgment. All of these are permitted by the local rules. L.R. 56-260, 78-230.

Although it is not entirely clear, it appears that plaintiff also seeks to strike a

portion of defendant Exum’s supplement statement of undisputed facts, which asserts that

plaintiff’s suicide threats were not legitimate. Docket No. 149-1, ¶ 64. This allegation is neither

scandalous nor impertinent, for it is relevant to the issues and does not “improperly” cast

plaintiff in a derogatory light because it appears to be based on records provided with the motion

for summary judgment. Wilkerson v. Butler, 229 F.R.D. 166, 170 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (allegation is

“impertinent” if it is not responsive or relevant to the issues; it is “scandalous” if it improperly

casts a derogatory light on someone).

Case 2:04-cv-00666-RSL-JLW Document 172 Filed 05/23/07 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

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s February 12, 2007 motion to cure the deficiency in his pleadings

(Docket No. 141) is denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s April 16, 2007 motion to strike (Docket No. 156) is denied.

DATED: May 23, 2007. 

2

elli0666.mot

Case 2:04-cv-00666-RSL-JLW Document 172 Filed 05/23/07 Page 4 of 4