Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00235/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00235-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO SOTO,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. GINES, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 11-CV-235-LAB (JMA)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED

ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT [Doc. No. 49] 

Presently before the Court is an ex parte application, construed by

the Court as a motion, for leave to file an amended answer to First

Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Gines and Hunt (“Defendants”). 

(Doc. No. 49.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that

Defendants’ motion be DENIED.

I. Background

Plaintiff Francisco Soto (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner currently

incarcerated at California State Prison, Los Angeles County, in Lancaster,

California, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action by

filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 3,

2011. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff alleged that he was injured on February 11,

2010 when a food cart fell on him as he was performing his assigned work

11cv235

Case 3:11-cv-00235-LAB-JMA Document 53 Filed 03/13/13 Page 1 of 6
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

duties while incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. 

Compl. at 3. He alleged the accident caused a visible fracture to the orbital

bone on the left side of his face as well as two additional fractures, and that

Defendants Gines, Hunt, White, and Stout failed to provide him with

adequate medical care, violated his right to be free from cruel and unusual

punishment, and violated his right to due process. Id. at 3-5. On October

7, 2011, after the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) and 12(b)(6), Plaintiff filed a First

Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The FAC alleged only one claim for violation

of the Eighth Amendment right to freedom from cruel and unusual

punishment against Defendants Gines, Hunt, and White. (Doc. No. 23.) 

On October 12, 2011, the defendants requested that their motion to

dismiss apply to the FAC. (Doc. No. 25.) 

On January 30, 2012, this Court filed a Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”) regarding Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 33.) The

Honorable Larry Alan Burns, United States District Judge assigned to this

case, adopted the R&R on February 27, 2012. (Doc. No. 34.) The effect of

the R&R and Judge Burns’ order was that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

claim was permitted to proceed against Defendants Gines and Hunt.1

These defendants filed an Answer on March 30, 2012. (Doc. No. 35.)

The undersigned held a Case Management Conference on May 11,

2012 and, after an unsuccessful attempt to appoint pro bono counsel for

Plaintiff, issued a Scheduling Order on June 7, 2012. (Doc. No. 40.) The

Scheduling Order provided that, “Any motion to join other parties, to amend

the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed on or before July

9, 2012.” Scheduling Order, ¶ 1. 

1

Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant White was dismissed without prejudice on May 14, 2012 due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve him in a timely manner. (Doc.

No. 39.) 

2 11cv235

Case 3:11-cv-00235-LAB-JMA Document 53 Filed 03/13/13 Page 2 of 6
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

On November 2, 2012, Defendants filed an Amended Answer. (Doc.

No. 46.) On November 7, 2012, the undersigned convened a Case

Management Conference, at which time counsel for Defendants advised

that she had filed an amended answer on behalf of Defendants to assert an

affirmative defense that Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was a worker’s

compensation claim since he was injured while working at the prison. That

same day, the Amended Answer was stricken from the record because

Defendants had not complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), which requires

an opposing party’s written consent or leave of court to file an amended

pleading. (Doc. No. 48.) 

On November 29, 2012, Defendants filed the instant motion for leave

to file an amended answer. (Doc. No. 49.) The Court issued a briefing

schedule on December 3, 2012. (Doc. No. 50.) Plaintiff did not file an

opposition to the motion. 

II. Legal Standards

Defendants move to amend their answer pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure Rule 15. Rule 15 provides that “[t]he court should freely

give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2);

see also Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000)

(“Generally, [Rule 15(a)] liberally allows for amendments to pleadings.”). 

However, once a district court has issued a scheduling order, it is the

standards of Rule 16 that govern, not Rule 15. See Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992); Coleman, 232 F.3d

at 1294.

Under Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district

court must issue a scheduling order “as soon as practicable.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 16(b)(2). “The scheduling order must limit the time to join other parties,

3 11cv235

Case 3:11-cv-00235-LAB-JMA Document 53 Filed 03/13/13 Page 3 of 6
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

amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions,” and “may be

modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(b)(3)(A) & (b)(4). Parties seeking to amend their pleadings after the

deadline set forth in a scheduling order has passed “must show good

cause for not having amended their [pleadings] before the time specified in

the scheduling order expired.” Coleman, 232 F.3d at 1294 (citing Johnson,

975 F.2d at 608-09). “This standard ‘primarily considers the diligence of

the party seeking the amendment.’” Id. (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at

609.) If good cause is shown, the requested amendment is then analyzed

under Rule 15. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608-09. If, however, the moving

party does not demonstrate diligence, the inquiry should end. Id. at 609. 

III. Discussion

Defendants’ requested amendment is subject to the standard set

forth in Rule 16 because the request to amend their answer was not made

until November 29, 2012, over four months after the July 9, 2012 deadline

to move to amend the pleadings. Unfortunately, Defendants’ motion does

not recognize this, and provides no argument concerning modification of

the scheduling order. Indeed, Defendants make no reference to the July 9,

2012 deadline to move to amend the pleadings, nor why they did not file

their motion within the time prescribed. Instead, the substance of

Defendants’ motion relates only to Rule 15, which is not applicable here

until the standards of Rule 16 have been met. The Court is left to

speculate why Defendants could not have moved earlier to assert an

affirmative defense of worker’s compensation exclusivity when they have

known the facts upon which the affirmative defense is based, i.e., that

Plaintiff was allegedly injured while performing his assigned work duties in

prison, since the time the original complaint was filed on February 3, 2011. 

4 11cv235

Case 3:11-cv-00235-LAB-JMA Document 53 Filed 03/13/13 Page 4 of 6
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

Without any explanation offered by Defendants, the Court cannot fathom

why they waited until November 29, 2012 to seek to amend their answer. 

The Court thus cannot make a finding that Defendants have acted with

diligence in seeking to amend their answer.

In the Ninth Circuit, “where a motion to amend [a pleading] is filed,

the motion to amend . . . is also deemed to be a motion to amend the

scheduling order, and the court’s denial of that motion to amend . . . is

deemed to be a denial of the motion to amend the scheduling order.” 

Aldan v. World Corp., 267 F.R.D. 346, 355-56 (D. N. Mar. I. 2010) (citing

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609-09). Under Rule 16(b), Defendants must show

good cause for not having amended their answer before the deadline set

forth in the scheduling order. They have failed to do so. 

Accordingly, the Court declines to amend the scheduling order, and

recommends that Defendants’ motion to file an amended answer be

DENIED.

IV. Conclusion and Recommendation

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion for leave to file

an amended answer to the First Amended Complaint should be DENIED.

This report and recommendation will be submitted to the Honorable

Larry Alan Burns, United States District Judge assigned to this case,

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may file

written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties on or

before March 28, 2013. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Report and Recommendation.” Any reply to the Objections shall be served

and filed on or before April 11, 2013. The parties are advised that failure

to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

5 11cv235

Case 3:11-cv-00235-LAB-JMA Document 53 Filed 03/13/13 Page 5 of 6
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

district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: March 13, 2013

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

6 11cv235

Case 3:11-cv-00235-LAB-JMA Document 53 Filed 03/13/13 Page 6 of 6