Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00480/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00480-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE GOMEZ, No. 2:13-CV-0480-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

SANDERS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s third amended complaint (Doc. 42,

plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. 41), defendants’ opposition to the motion for

additional time (Doc. 43), and defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. 44). 

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s second amended complaint. The undersigned

issued findings and recommendations that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted, limiting the

claims in this action. The findings and recommendations are pending submission to the District

Court and thus are not finalized. No objections to the findings and recommendation have been

filed. However, in response to the findings and recommendations, plaintiff filed a motion for an

extension of time to file a third amended complaint. Without waiting for the court to act on his

1

Case 2:13-cv-00480-TLN-CMK Document 45 Filed 10/13/16 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

request for additional time, plaintiff filed his third amended complaint. Defendants oppose both

the motion for additional time and the filing of the third amended complaint.

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

pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days of serving the pleading or, if the pleading is

one to which a responsive pleading is required, within 21 days after service of the responsive

pleading, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), or within 21 days after service of a motion under Rule

12(b), (e), or (f) of the rules, whichever time is earlier, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). In all

other situations, a party’s pleadings may only be amended upon leave of court or stipulation of all

the parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 

The time for plaintiff to file an amended complaint without leave of court has long

since past. As such, prior to filing another amended complaint, plaintiff is required to seek leave

of court or a stipulation from the defendants. No leave of court has been sought, nor has any

stipulation been brought to the court’s attention. As such, plaintiff’s third amended complaint

has been improperly filed, and will be stricken from the docket. As plaintiff never requested

leave of court to file an amended complaint, his request for additional time in which to do so is

also improper and will be denied. 

It is further noted that any request for leave of court to file an amended complaint

may be futile. Where leave of court to amend is required and sought, the court considers the

following factors: (1) whether there is a reasonable relationship between the original and

amended pleadings; (2) whether the grant of leave to amend is in the interest of judicial economy

and will promote the speedy resolution of the entire controversy; (3) whether there was a delay in

seeking leave to amend; (4) whether the grant of leave to amend would delay a trial on the merits

of the original claim; and (5) whether the opposing party will be prejudiced by amendment. See

Jackson v. Bank of Hawai’i, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). Leave to amend should be

denied where the proposed amendment is frivolous. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833

F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).

2

Case 2:13-cv-00480-TLN-CMK Document 45 Filed 10/13/16 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

From the allegations in the third amended complaint, it appears the amendment

seeks to add additional defendants and claims that are seemingly unrelated to the claims in this

action and/or would not survive screening. To the extent plaintiff attempts to state a claim

against J. Clark Kelso as Federal Receiver, plaintiff’s allegations appear to relate to the

Receiver’s supervisorial position. Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983

for the actions of their employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)

(holding that there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983). A supervisor is only liable

for the constitutional violations of subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the

violations. See id. The Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a supervisory defendant can

be liable based on knowledge and acquiescence in a subordinate’s unconstitutional conduct

because government officials, regardless of their title, can only be held liable under § 1983 for

his or her own conduct and not the conduct of others. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129

S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Supervisory personnel who implement a policy so deficient that the

policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and the moving force behind a constitutional

violation may, however, be liable even where such personnel do not overtly participate in the

offensive act. See Redman v. Cnty of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). 

As to plaintiff’s allegations against Galen H. Church, the claims are not related to

those alleged in this case. Those allegations relate to actions that have occurred at another

facility and involve failure to evaluate plaintiff’s medical condition not a denial of a transplant

for financial reasons as alleged against the defendants in this action.

As no request for leave to file an amended complaint has been filed, the third

amended complaint was filed without authorization and will be stricken. This action will

continue on the second amended complaint until ordered otherwise.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (Doc. 42) is stricken as filed without

leave of court;

3

Case 2:13-cv-00480-TLN-CMK Document 45 Filed 10/13/16 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

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. 41) is denied; and

3. Defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. 44) is granted to the extent consistent

with this order.

DATED: October 12, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:13-cv-00480-TLN-CMK Document 45 Filed 10/13/16 Page 4 of 4