Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00387/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00387-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Damian Dudley 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Captain Cesolini,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-387-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to File a Second Amended

Complaint, doc. 57, adding two new claims and sixteen new defendants. Defendant opposes

the motion, doc. 58. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion. 

I. Background

On July 29, 2010, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action in

Arizona Superior Court. (Doc. 1) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on August 18,

2010. On February 28, 2011, Defendant served a notice of Removal to Federal Court. 

(Doc. 1) On March 9, 2011, Defendant answered the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 5) 

Plaintiff alleges violations based on an October 27, 2009 cell search. On October 28, 2009,

Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance relating to books and magazines allegedly taken from his

cell on October 27, 2009. (Doc. 23, Exhs. A, B) In his grievance, Plaintiff discussed the 

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”) jail policies and procedures relating to

contraband, altered items, and excess items. (Id.) On December 23, 2009, Plaintiff served

a Notice of Claim on MCSO alleging that four books and seven magazine were taken during

Case 2:11-cv-00387-SMM Document 61 Filed 11/16/11 Page 1 of 5
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 -

an October 27, 2009 cell search, and claiming that MCSO jail policies and procedures did

not authorize taking his property. 

 On March 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended

complaint which the Court denied for failure to comply with LRCiv 15.1 and Fed.R.Civ.P.

15(a)(2). (Doc. 1) Thereafter, the Court issued a Scheduling and Discovery Order, doc. 13,

setting an October 3, 2011 deadline for motions to amend or join parties. Plaintiff’s motion

to amend is signed September 22, 2011 and is timely. The Scheduling and Discovery Order

set a May 31, 2011 deadline for serving discovery requests. (Doc. 13) 

The parties participated in discovery, and on June 15, 2011, Defendant served his

Supplemental Answers to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Request for Production of

Documents. As part of these responses, Defendant identified the names and badge numbers

of officers who may have been involved in the October 27, 2009 cell searches on Tower 24

at the Lower Buckeye Jail; identified MCSO policies and procedures relating to cell

searches, contraband, unauthorized property, and excess property; and produced

supplemental documents relating to the foregoing. (Doc. 58, Uglietta declaration ¶ 2) On

October 6, 2011, Defendant deposed Plaintiff by telephone. On October 11, 2011, Plaintiff

filed the pending motion to amend, which Defendant opposes. For the reasons set forth

below, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. 

II. Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs the amendment of complaints. 

Because Plaintiff has already amended his complaint and Defendant opposes the motion to

file a second complaint, Plaintiff needs leave to further amend his complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P.

15(a)(2). Rule 15 provides that leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so

requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). The district court has broad discretion regarding

amendment, particularly when a plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. SissetonWahpeton Sioux Tribe of Lake Traverse Indian Reservation v. U.S., 90 F.3d 351, 355-56

(9th Cir. 1996) (affirming denial of leave to amend where amendments would be futile and

redundant of earlier amendments). In determining whether to grant leave to amend a

Case 2:11-cv-00387-SMM Document 61 Filed 11/16/11 Page 2 of 5
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 -

complaint, the court considers “(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.” Allen v City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990) (affirming

denial of leave to amend where plaintiff had previously amended and proposed amendments

were futile). See also Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Bonin v.

Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir.1995)), reh'g and reh’g en banc denied, 375 F.3d 810

(9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1188 (2005). Here, there is no evidence of bad faith. 

However, the remaining factors weigh against granting leave to amend. 

First, Plaintiff unduly delayed in seeking leave to file a second amended

complaint. Plaintiff has already amended his complaint once, and waited over year after

filing his First Amended Complaint, to seek leave to file a second amended complaint. 

Additionally, Plaintiff seeks leave to add Officers Stewart, Barnette, Kenney, Jones, Bryan,

Johnson, Wibole, Gillett, Hogue, Dugonic, Harlow, Miller and Derwin. He alleges that

these officers “worked in the LBJ” and that the “entire Tower 24/B-pod was being searched

by the rest of the Defendants.” (Doc. 57, proposed second amended complaint) Plaintiff

had information about the individuals who may have participated in the October 27, 2009

cell search no later than June 15, 2011 when Defendant served his supplemental discovery

answers identifying those individuals. (Doc. 58, Uglietta declaration ¶ 2) Plaintiff,

however, waited nearly three months, and until after discovery closed, to move to amend his

complaint to add these defendants. Plaintiff does not explain the undue delay in seeking

leave to amend to add numerous defendants. Although delay standing alone does not

resolve the amendment analysis, it is relevant, “especially when no reason is given for the

delay.” Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir.

1999) (citations omitted) (affirming denial of leave to amend where facts were available to

plaintiff before motion was filed, plaintiff did not explain reason for delay, and filing after

close of discovery would prejudice defendant). 

Likewise, Plaintiff unduly delayed in seeking leave to amend his complaint to

add a “custom and policy” claim against MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio and to add supervisory

Case 2:11-cv-00387-SMM Document 61 Filed 11/16/11 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

liability claims against Defendant Cessolini and Rojas. During his deposition, Plaintiff

admitted that he received a copy of MCSO Jail Rules and Regulations when he became an

inmate at Towers Jail, before the October 27, 2009 cell search at issue. (Doc. 23, Exh. C;

doc. 58, Uglietta declaration ¶ 6) Additionally, in his 2009 grievances and Notice of Claim,

Plaintiff argued that MCSO Jail Rules and Regulation did not authorize the taking of his

items. (Doc. 23, Exhs. A, B) Thus, no later than 2009, Plaintiff had knowledge of MCSO’s

“customs and policies” related to contraband, altered items, and excess items. Plaintiff

could have, but chose not to, included a “custom and policies” claim in his original or first

amended complaint. Plaintiff, however, waited too long to add such a claim. See Chodos v.

West Publishing Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1002 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming denial of amendment

where alleged “new facts” were available before the first amendment such that the motion to

amend was a dilatory tactic, after undue delay, and prejudicial to defendant). 

Furthermore, permitting Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint to add new

claims and defendants after the close of discovery is prejudicial to Defendant and a dilatory

tactic to prolong this action. During his deposition, Plaintiff indicated that by amending the

complaint, the litigation “would start over.” (Doc. 58, Uglietta Declaration ¶ 5) Restarting

the litigation, after discovery has closed, would prejudice Defendant who would be required

to wait while numerous new defendants were served and participate anew in discovery. 

In summary, Plaintiff unduly delayed in seeking leave to file a second amended

complaint, and permitting amendment would be prejudicial to Defendant. Moreover, it

appears that Plaintiff’s proposed claims are futile - however, the Court need not consider the

merits of those claims because the other factors - undue delay, prejudice to defendant, and

the fact that Plaintiff has previously amended his complaint - support denying Plaintiff’s

motion. 

Accordingly,

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:11-cv-00387-SMM Document 61 Filed 11/16/11 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

Complaint, doc. 57, is DENIED. 

DATED this 16th day of November, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00387-SMM Document 61 Filed 11/16/11 Page 5 of 5