Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01787/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01787-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1 On April 22, 2008, the Estate of Thomas Lee Williams

was substituted as the plaintiff in this litigation due to

plaintiff Thomas Lee William’s (“Williams”) death. (See Mem. &

Order [Docket #38], filed Apr. 22, 2008.)

2 All further references to a “Rule” are to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff moves for leave to amend

pursuant to Rule 15. However, because a pretrial scheduling

order is in place in this matter, the court construes the motion

as a motion to modify the pretrial scheduling order to permit an

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

THOMAS LEE WILLIAMS, by and

through his Guardian ad litem, 

Darius Williams, Case No. 2:07-CV-1787-FCD-EFB

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CITY OF WEED, CHRIS YOUNG, an

individual, STEVEN SHANNON, an

individual, MARTIN NICHOLAS,

an individual

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Estate of

Thomas Lee Williams’1 (“plaintiff”) motion to modify the

scheduling order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

16(b),2 and to file a first amended complaint pursuant to Rule

Case 2:07-cv-01787-FCD-EFB Document 59 Filed 10/14/08 Page 1 of 7
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

amended pleading pursuant to Rule 16. Because plaintiff has

sufficiently discussed diligence in seeking amendment of the

pleadings, the court rules on the motion as submitted.

3 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs.

E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

2

15. Defendants City of Weed, Chris Young (“Young”), Steven

Shannon (“Shannon”), and Martin Nicholas (“Nicholas”)

(collectively “defendants”) oppose the motion to the extent it

adds claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, defendants do not

oppose plaintiff’s motion to the extent it seeks (1) to add

Chauncey Williams, Williams’ son and successor in interest, as a

party plaintiff; or (2) to allege a claim for wrongful death. 

For the reasons set forth below,3 plaintiff’s motion GRANTED. 

BACKGROUND

This is a civil rights action in which plaintiff alleges

that Williams was beaten by defendant police officers, whose

failed to provide him necessary medical care resulted in death. 

Plaintiff alleges that on or about September 6, 2006, defendants

Young and Shannon performed a traffic stop on Williams, who was

driving a vehicle without a functioning licence plate light. 

(Compl., filed Aug. 30, 2008, ¶ 11.) According to Shannon’s

report, Williams placed something in his mouth and began to chew;

Shannon suspected that Williams was attempting to swallow

contraband and ordered him to the spit the item out and exit the

vehicle. (Id. ¶ 12.) Williams did not respond. (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleges that Young reached into the vehicle through a

driver’s side window, grabbed Williams by the neck, and slammed

William’s head into the steering wheel, rendering him

Case 2:07-cv-01787-FCD-EFB Document 59 Filed 10/14/08 Page 2 of 7
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

unconscious. (Id.) Young and Shannon then pulled Williams from

the vehicle, threw him to the ground, and dropped a knee into

William’s head. (Id.) Williams was dragged to the location of

Shannon’s patrol vehicle. (Id.)

Plaintiff further alleges that during the time that Shannon

and Young were with Williams, Williams stopped breathing and

suffered irreversible brain damage when Shannon and Young allowed

him to lie unconscious on the road without attempting to remove

the item from his mouth or to timely obtain emergency medical

services for Williams. (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff alleges that

Williams laid unconscious and not breathing on the roadway for

approximately twenty-five minutes before medical personnel

arrived. (Id.) Williams was transported to a hospital, where it

was discovered that he had suffered a catastrophic anoxic brain

injury. (Id. ¶ 14.) Subsequently, when Williams’ condition did

not improve, he was transferred to a sub-acute hospital, where he

remained in a coma. (Id.) On November 24, 2007, Williams died. 

(Notice of Suggestion of Death [Docket #19], filed Feb. 14,

2008.) 

STANDARD

Once the court has entered a pretrial scheduling order

pursuant to Rule 16, the standards of Rule 16 rather than Rule 15

govern amendment of the pleadings. See Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992); Eckert

Cold Storage, Inc. v. Behl, 943 F. Supp. 1230, 1232-33 (E.D. Cal.

1996). Orders entered before the final pretrial conference may

be modified only “upon a showing of good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(b). The good cause requirement of Rule 16 primarily considers

Case 2:07-cv-01787-FCD-EFB Document 59 Filed 10/14/08 Page 3 of 7
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

the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Only after the

moving party has demonstrated diligence under Rule 16 does the

court apply the standard under Rule 15 to determine whether the

amendment was proper. See Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d at 608;

Eckert Cold Storage, 943 F. Supp. at 1232 n.3. Pursuant to Rule

15(a), “leave [to amend] is to be freely given when justice so

requires.” “[L]eave to amend should be granted unless amendment

would cause prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad

faith, is futile, or creates an undue delay.” Martinez v.

Newport Beach, 125 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 1997).

ANALYSIS

Defendants do not oppose plaintiff’s motion to amend the

complaint to the extent it seeks to add a claim for wrongful

death or to add Chauncey Williams, Williams’ son and successor in

interest, as a party plaintiff. (See Defs.’ Opp’n to Mot. to

Amend Compl. (“Opp’n”), filed Sept. 30, 2008.) Based upon the

submissions of plaintiff, and in light of defendants’ silence

with respect to this aspect of the motion, plaintiff’s motion to

amend the complaint to add a claim for wrongful death and a new

party plaintiff is GRANTED.

Defendants oppose amendment of the complaint to the extent

plaintiff seeks the addition of the Second, Fourth, and Fifth

Claims for Relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as set forth in

the proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Defendants’ three

page opposition, bereft of any citation to applicable case law or

the standard for reviewing a motion to amend, seemingly argues

that amendment would be futile because plaintiff’s allegations do

not rise to the level of constitutional violations. 

Case 2:07-cv-01787-FCD-EFB Document 59 Filed 10/14/08 Page 4 of 7
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 The court notes that defendants did not file a motion

to dismiss this original claim under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to

state a claim.

5

Plaintiff’s original complaint alleges one Claim for Relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that includes allegations of

multiple constitutional violations based upon different conduct

by all defendants. The factual allegations give rise to claims

(1) against Young and Shannon for unreasonable and excessive

force; (2) against Young and Shannon for deliberate indifference

to Williams’ serious medial needs; and (3) against the City of

Weed and Nicholas for creating or maintaining policies or customs

or otherwise ratifying the use of excessive and unreasonable

force by police officers. The proposed FAC alleges five

different Claims for Relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Ex. 3

to Decl. of Thomas N. Peterson in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. To Amend

(“Peterson Decl”), filed Sept. 3, 2008.) The First Claim is

against Young and Shannon for unreasonable and excessive force. 

(Id.) The Second Claim is against Young and Shannon for

deliberate indifference to Williams’ serious medical needs. 

(Id.) The Third Claim is against the City of Weed and Nicholas

for creating or maintaining policies or customs or otherwise

ratifying the use of excessive and unreasonable force by police

officers. (Id.) These are the same claims arising from the same

factual basis as those set forth in the original complaint.4

(Id.) The proposed FAC also includes a Fourth and Fifth Claim

for Relief against the City of Weed and Nicholas for failure to

train police officers to administer timely and effective

assistance to serious medical needs and for failure to provide

Case 2:07-cv-01787-FCD-EFB Document 59 Filed 10/14/08 Page 5 of 7
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 Plaintiff contends that he did not seek amendment of

the complaint until this time due to discussions relating to

settlement in the matter. (Ex. 1 to Peterson Decl.) Defendants

do not dispute that plaintiff was diligent in seeking amendment

of the complaint. (See Opp’n.) As such, the court holds that

Rule 16's good cause requirement has been satisfied.

6 The court notes that nothing in this order precludes

defendants from testing the legal or factual sufficiency of

plaintiff’s claims at a later stage in the litigation.

6

sufficient funds for such training. (Id.)

The court concludes that, on this procedural motion and in

light of the minimal briefing by defendants, it cannot hold that

plaintiff’s proposed Second, Fourth, and Fifth Claims for relief

are futile.5 Defendants’ argument is based upon construing and

characterizing plaintiff’s allegations in the light least

favorable to plaintiff. (See Opp’n at 2-3.) However, on a

motion to amend, “a proposed amendment is futile only if no set

of facts can be proved under the amendment which would constitute

a valid or sufficient claim or defense.” Miller v. RykiffSexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988) (comparing the

standard in evaluating the legal sufficiency of a proposed

amendment to the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) that requires the

allegations in the complain to be construed in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff). Defendants have failed to

substantiate any argument that plaintiff’s proposed claims

contain such deficiencies. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to modify the

pretrial scheduling order and amend the complaint is GRANTED.6

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within ten (10) days

from the date of this order to file an amended complaint in

Case 2:07-cv-01787-FCD-EFB Document 59 Filed 10/14/08 Page 6 of 7
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

7

accordance with this order. Defendants are granted thirty (30)

days from the date of service of plaintiff’s amended complaint to

file a response thereto. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 10, 2008. 

Case 2:07-cv-01787-FCD-EFB Document 59 Filed 10/14/08 Page 7 of 7