Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00906/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00906-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN FRATUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-00906-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND 

(Doc. 35)

Plaintiff John Fratus, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 4, 2012. This action is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim against Defendant Callow in his individual capacity for 

damages and against Defendant Beard in his official capacity for injunctive relief. On August 13, 

2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended complaint to add facts detailing 

the two-year period during which he was involuntarily medicated. Defendants Callow and Beard 

filed an opposition on August 28, 2014, and the motion has been submitted upon the record 

without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l). 

The federal system is one of notice pleading, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) 

requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 

relief” and “a demand for the relief sought.” The stated ground for Plaintiff’s motion is his desire 

to add more facts regarding injuries he sustained, purportedly to support the damages he seeks

Case 1:12-cv-00906-DAD-SKO Document 41 Filed 12/03/14 Page 1 of 2
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

from Defendant Callow. However, the addition of such detail is entirely unnecessary, as Plaintiff 

need only identify the relief he seeks, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(3), and “judgment should grant the 

relief to which the party is entitled, even if the party has not demanded that relief in its pleadings,” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c). While “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given 

when justice so requires,’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)), justice does not require courts to permit litigants to 

add what are merely superfluous facts.

Moreover, courts may properly deny leave to amend if the proposed amendments are 

futile. E.g., Woods v. City of San Diego, 678 F.3d 1075, 1082 (9th Cir. 2012); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 

658 F.3d 1090, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2011); Carrico v. City and County of San Francisco, 656 F.3d 

1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff’s claim for money damages against Defendant Callow arises 

out of a prison disciplinary hearing held on August 23, 2006, during which Callow served as the 

senior hearing officer and found Plaintiff guilty, allegedly without all of the procedural protections 

he was due under the Fourteenth Amendment. To the extent that Plaintiff was subsequently

involuntarily medicated for two years while in the Security Housing Unit, his claim against 

Defendant Callow provides no basis upon which to pin damages arising from subsequent events 

involving other individuals. See e.g., Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 112, 113 S.Ct. 566 (1992); 

Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 305-08, 106 S.Ct. 2537 (1986); Smith v. 

Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 103 S.Ct. 1625 (1983); Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 253-54, 98 S.Ct. 1042 

(1978). It appears that Plaintiff is trying to bootstrap onto his viable procedural due process claim 

injuries which are not attributable to Defendant Callow’s conduct, and the Court is not required to 

permit what would be a futile amendment.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended 

complaint is HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00906-DAD-SKO Document 41 Filed 12/03/14 Page 2 of 2