Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01530/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01530-10/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

GUY T. STRINGHAM, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S- 04-1530 DFL GGH P

vs.

R. LEE, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Defendants filed a March 20, 2007, request for the court to modify the 

scheduling order and for leave to file a motion for summary judgment on behalf of

defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and California

Medical Facility - Vacaville (CMF), involving plaintiff’s claims for prospective injunctive relief

only, to which plaintiff filed his opposition. By Order, filed on March 30, 2007, this court’s

February 20, 2007, Findings and Recommendations were adopted. The individual defendants in

this matter were granted summary judgment and this case now proceeds only as to the injunctive

relief claims against CDCR and CMF under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA). Plaintiff contends that the remaining defendants, CDCR and CMF, have never even

answered the complaint, and now only belatedly seek to address and dispose of the injunctive

Case 2:04-cv-01530-JAM-GGH Document 67 Filed 04/30/07 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

relief claims sought from the CDCR and CMF under the ADA.

This court’s review of the court record in this case indicates that defendant CMF

has filed an answer to the complaint (see docket entry # 26). While the record does not

demonstrate that any answer was filed on behalf of CDCR, defendants may believe that

answering on behalf of CMF is adequate to answer on behalf of the state such that an answer by

CDCR would be superfluous. In any event as to any entity defendant, it would unfairly prejudice

plaintiff to allow a further dispositive pretrial motion simply on the basis of a miscalculation or

erroneous assessment by defendants’ counsel as to whether or not this matter proceeded on

injunctive relief claims. The request to modify the schedule to allow a further or supplemental

summary judgment motion will be denied. 

Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend, on April 12, 2006. The motion was

not accompanied by a proposed amended complaint and is defective on that basis alone. Further,

at this point in the litigation, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), plaintiff may amend “only by leave of

court or by written consent of the adverse party....” Although leave to amend “shall be freely

given when justice so requires,” this action was filed in, and has been proceeding since 2004, and

comes at a most untimely point. Without adequate explanation, plaintiff avers in an amended

complaint he could name two defendants, in lieu of two he named inaccurately, based on new,

previously unavailable (and undescribed evidence). In his motion, plaintiff neither names the

defendants who he now claims were not involved in conduct that resulted in a deprivation of his

constitutional rights, nor names the two additional defendants he now seeks leave to proceed

against

While plaintiff does not explain why or how he has only now come into the newly

gleaned information, following his motion for leave to amend, plaintiff, more than a week later, 

filed a proposed amended complaint, on April 20, 2007. The proposed amended complaint

consists of more than 200 pages, including exhibits. The court has recently ruled on a motion

for summary judgment, as noted above, and the matter now proceeds only as two entity

Case 2:04-cv-01530-JAM-GGH Document 67 Filed 04/30/07 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

defendants at this point under the ADA. Plaintiff attempts to re-name in his proposed amended

complaint all but one of the individual defendants previously named in this action in whose favor

judgment has now been entered following adjudication of the motion for summary judgment. 

Only one individual defendant, Providence, appears to have been dropped, while two additional

defendants, McDonald and Bick, appear to have been added. Plaintiff does not explain how it is

that he believes himself entitled to re-name and re-allege his claims against all of the individual

defendants for whom summary judgment has been granted. In any event, plaintiff will not be

permitted to re-start the litigation at this late date. 

Liberality in granting a plaintiff leave to amend “is subject to the qualification that

the amendment not cause undue prejudice to the defendant, is not sought in bad faith, and is not

futile.” Thornton v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 261 F.3d 789, 799 (9 Cir. 2001), quoting th

Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir.1999). The court finds that plaintiff has filed an

incomplete motion, that his grounds for seeking leave to amend are inadequately set forth, that

his defective motion comes at a stage when defendants would be unduly prejudiced by

granting plaintiff leave to amend, and that, by his even later and separately submitted proposed

amended complaint, plaintiff seeks, without any basis to do so whatsoever, primarily to re-litigate

previously adjudicated claims.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ March 20, 2007, request to modify the scheduling order and grant

leave to file a motion for summary judgment by the remaining defendants is denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s defective request for leave to file an amended complaint, filed April

12, 2007, is denied, and his proposed amended complaint, filed on April 20, 2007, is stricken;

DATED: 4/30/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________ 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

stri1530.dny

Case 2:04-cv-01530-JAM-GGH Document 67 Filed 04/30/07 Page 3 of 3