Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03028/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03028-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:16-cv-03028-BTM-AGS

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

RICHARD ARMENTA,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. PARAMO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-03028-BTM-AGS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

[ECF No. 51]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended 

Complaint. (ECF No. 51; see also ECF No. 51-2 (proposed Second Amended 

Complaint).) Plaintiff is presently imprisoned at California State Prison – Corcoran 

(“Corcoran”) in Corcoran, California. Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his operative 

complaint – which alleges claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate 

indifference to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against 

several prison officials, sued in their individual capacities, employed at the Richard 

J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California – to add a 

separate claim of deliberate indifference seeking injunctive relief against the 

current Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 

Ralph Diaz, in his official capacity. (Compare ECF No. 28 (operative First Amend 

Complaint); with ECF No. 51-2 (proposed Second Amended Complaint).)

Case 3:16-cv-03028-BTM-AGS Document 58 Filed 01/23/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:16-cv-03028-BTM-AGS

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

Plaintiff’s claims in his operative complaint arise out of allegations that prison 

officials at RJD ignored his medical needs with regard to a brain tumor, originally 

diagnosed in March 2013, from which he presently suffers. (See ECF No. 36, at 

2-4.) In his proposed Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he “has been 

transferred at least eight times to different prisons throughout California without 

receiving any effective medical treatment of his brain tumor” since leaving RJD in 

August 2016. (ECF No. 51-1, at 2; see also ECF No. 51-2, ¶¶ 83-92 (delineating 

Plaintiff’s locations of imprisonment from August 2016 through the present).)

Plaintiff alleges that Secretary Diaz “implemented a policy that allowed Plaintiff’s 

transfer from RJD and his other subsequent prison transfers which is continuing to 

result in delay of the treatment of his serious medical needs” and “[t]his delay is 

evidence that [Secretary] Diaz has a policy or practice of deliberate indifference to 

Plaintiff’s medical needs” in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 51-2, 

¶¶ 104-105.) Accordingly, the proposed Second Amended Complaint requests

injunctive relief prohibiting Secretary Diaz “from transferring Plaintiff to another 

prison before he receives adequate medical treatment for his brain tumor at 

Corcoran” and compelling Secretary Diaz “to provide Plaintiff with adequate 

medical care, including ordering surgery for the treatment of his brain tumor at 

Corcoran[.]” (Id. at 17, ¶¶ H, I.) Further, Plaintiff argues that “Secretary Diaz is 

being added to the case because he is the one person who, should [Plaintiff] 

prevail on the merits, is capable of ordering the [medical treatment he requires]

regardless of the location where [Plaintiff] may be imprisoned.” (ECF No. 56, at 

2.) 

Defendants Glynn, Paramo, Roberts, and Shakibah (the “RJD Defendants”) 

oppose amendment on the grounds of futility. (ECF No. 52, at 2.) More 

specifically, the RJD Defendants argue that: (1) Plaintiff’s medical needs do not 

necessitate the surgery he requests; (2) Plaintiff fails to adequately allege the 

existence of a policy or practice “that caused him to be transferred notwithstanding 

Case 3:16-cv-03028-BTM-AGS Document 58 Filed 01/23/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:16-cv-03028-BTM-AGS

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

his alleged serious medical condition[;]” (3) the injunctive relief requested is 

improper because the relief requested contradicts medical advice, would allow 

Plaintiff to dictate his location of imprisonment, and could potentially interfere with 

prison safety concerns; (4) Plaintiff cannot demonstrate irreparable injury in the 

absence of the requested injunctions, (5) equity does not favor the requested 

injunctive relief; and (6) the public interest is not served by an injunction. (Id. at 5-

10.)

The RJD Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s medical needs do not 

necessitate surgery is based upon disputes of material fact which would require 

the Court to construe the pleadings or draw inferences against Plaintiff or rely upon

facts and evidence not referenced in the proposed Second Amended Complaint

and for which judicial notice has not been sought. (See ECF No. 52, at 5-6 (citing 

ECF No. 53).) The same is true with regard to the RJD Defendants’ arguments 

that the requested injunctive relief is improper, that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate 

irreparable injury, that equity does not favor injunctive relief, and that the public 

interest is not served by an injunction. (Id. at 7-10.) Such arguments are therefore 

inapposite to a motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint. See Missouri 

ex rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 656 (9th Cir. 2017) (“An amendment is futile 

when no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that 

would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense.” (internal quotations and 

citations omitted)); see also Outdoor Media Grp., Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506 

F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir. 2007) (“When ruling on a motion to dismiss, we may 

generally consider only allegations contained in the pleadings, exhibits attached to 

the complaint, and matters properly subject to judicial notice. We accept all factual 

allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)). 

As to their argument that Plaintiff has failed to identify a policy or practice 

“that caused him to be transferred notwithstanding his alleged serious medical 

Case 3:16-cv-03028-BTM-AGS Document 58 Filed 01/23/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:16-cv-03028-BTM-AGS

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

condition,” the RJD Defendants assert that the proposed Second Amended 

Complaint “does not adequately allege a pervasive pattern reflecting department 

policy” to warrant enjoining a state agency. (ECF No. 52, at 6-7 (citing Thomas v. 

Cty. of Los Angeles, 978 F.2d 504, 509 (9th Cir. 1992).) Drawing all reasonable 

inferences in favor of Plaintiff, however, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has 

sufficiently pled such a pervasive pattern – at least with regard to Plaintiff 

individually – in light of the numerous transfers Plaintiff has allegedly endured since 

leaving RJD. Accordingly, the RJD Defendants have failed to demonstrate futility 

of amendment. 

Finally, the RJD Defendants have failed to identify any other reason 

counseling against amendment. See Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 

373 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Five factors are frequently used to assess the propriety of a 

motion for leave to amend: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the 

opposing party, (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether plaintiff has previously 

amended his complaint.”).

Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second 

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 51) is GRANTED and Plaintiff may file an amended 

complaint in the form of the proposed Second Amended Complaint attached to 

their motion as Exhibit A (ECF No. 51-2). Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint 

on or before February 7, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2020

Case 3:16-cv-03028-BTM-AGS Document 58 Filed 01/23/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4