Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00343/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00343-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMON MICKIANGELO No. CIV S-06-0343-FCD-CMK-P

BERRY, III,

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

JEFFREY L. BAKER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s request to “join necessary

defendants” (Doc. 17), filed on January 8, 2007. 

Plaintiff initiated this action with a complaint filed on February 17, 2006. In the

caption of the compliant, plaintiff lists the following three individuals as defendants: Baker,

Robinson, and Campbell. No other individuals are listed as defendants. In Section III of the

complaint, entitled “Introduction of Defendants,” plaintiff again lists only Baker, Robinson, and

Campbell as defendants. On April 17, 2006, plaintiff submitted proofs of service of the

complaint on the three named defendants. On May 23, 2006, the court directed defendants to file

Case 2:06-cv-00343-FCD-CMK Document 20 Filed 01/18/07 Page 1 of 3
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

a response to the complaint. Defendants filed their answer on July 26, 2006. 

Now, more than seven months after the court’s order directing defendants to

respond to the complaint, plaintiff asserts for the first time that there are additional defendants to

the action. Plaintiff seeks such orders as are appropriate for service of the additional defendants. 

Plaintiff states that the six additional defendants – Cagle, Lamb, Jacinto, McAlister, Kudlata, and

Subia – are all referenced in the original complaint. While the court finds that plaintiff is correct

in that these six individuals are referenced in the complaint, none of them are labeled defendants

anywhere in the pleading. Moreover, the court must wonder why plaintiff did not alert the court

earlier that additional defendants should have been served. 

In any event, plaintiff’s original complaint does not list the six additional

individuals as defendants. For this reason, plaintiff must file an amended complaint naming all

the persons he wishes to be defendants to this action. Because the currently named defendants

have appeared, plaintiff is required to obtain leave of court prior to filing an amended complaint. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In addition, pursuant to this court’s local rules, such a motion must be

accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. In this case, plaintiff has not filed a motion for

leave to amend or submitted a proposed amended complaint. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for

such orders as are necessary for service of the additional individuals is not appropriate at this

time and will be denied. Plaintiff may renew his request in the context of a motion for leave to

amend under Rule 15(a), accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. 

Where leave of court to amend is 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). In any such motion for leave

Case 2:06-cv-00343-FCD-CMK Document 20 Filed 01/18/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

to amend, in addition to addressing the other factors outlined above, plaintiff must explain why

he delayed in seeking to add defendants. Delay is of particular concern given that discovery

closed on November 24, 2006, and the pre-trial motions deadline of January 19, 2007, is fast

approaching. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to join necessary

defendants (Doc. 17) is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: January 17, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00343-FCD-CMK Document 20 Filed 01/18/07 Page 3 of 3