Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02216/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02216-26/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

ERNEST LEE VADEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR ROBERT L MAYES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-2216 TLN CKD P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding with a civil action against defendants Mayes, 

Kuersten and California State Prison, Solano. On September 26, 2022, the court denied 

plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend and ordered plaintiff’s second amended complaint stricken. 

Specifically, the court found as follows:

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s proposed second amended 

complaint. The body of the proposed second amended complaint is 

20 pages as opposed to the operative amended complaint which is 

only 8 pages. While the court understands that it is appropriate that 

the second amended complaint be longer than the amended 

complaint as plaintiff attempts to add defendants back into the case 

that were included in the original complaint but not the amended, plaintiff has not adequately explained the expansion of the proposed 

pleadings. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend will 

be denied without prejudice to renewal within 30 days.

If plaintiff seeks leave to amend, he must identify all proposed 

amendments in his motion, why the proposed amendment is material

(i.e. why the amendment matters) and must explain the delay in the 

presentation of the proposed amendment. 

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 152 Filed 02/21/23 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

The body of the new second amended complaint is 19 pages which again is more than

twice the length of the operative amended complaint. In his motion for leave to amend, plaintiff 

fails to comply with the court’s September 26, 2022 order in that he does not specifically identify 

proposed amendments, indicate why a proposed amendment is material and/or adequately explain 

the delay in presenting the proposed amendment. Plaintiff’s general assertion that he seeks leave 

to amend as a result of information learned in discovery is not sufficient. 

As plaintiff already knows, under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 

court grants leave to amend “when justice so requires.” In deciding whether leave to amend

should be granted, factors to be considered include the presence or absence of undue delay, bad 

faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue 

prejudice to the opposing party and futility of the proposed amendment. Forman v. Davis, 371 

U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Because plaintiff has failed to, as ordered, adequately identify in his 

motion his proposed amendments, explain the delay in the presentation of the new allegations, 

and demonstrate that the proposed amendments are material, the court cannot find that justice 

requires granting leave to amend. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend should be 

denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 134) be denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s November 3, 2022, second amended complaint be stricken.

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 

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 response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 152 Filed 02/21/23 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

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: February 21, 2023

1

vade2216.lta(2)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 152 Filed 02/21/23 Page 3 of 3