Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04198/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04198-3/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONNIE LEE MOODY,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIMMS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.15-cv-04198-JSC 

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; 

GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME

Re: Dkt. Nos. 53, 55

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 against eight San Francisco County Sheriff’s deputies for violating his rights while 

he was incarcerated at the San Francisco County Jail.1 On December 30, 2015, he filed an 

amended complaint. After deposing Plaintiff, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment

on August 19, 2016. On August 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second 

amended complaint, which Defendants oppose. On September 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

an extension of time in which to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 

As Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request to file a second amended complaint, Plaintiff 

must obtain leave of court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) is to 

be applied liberally in favor of amendments and, in general, leave shall be freely given when 

justice so requires. Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994). Leave need 

not be granted where the amendment of the complaint would cause the opposing party undue 

prejudice, is sought in bad faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates undue delay. Id. A

district court's discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where, as here, the plaintiff 

 1 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF Nos. 1, 24.) 

Case 3:15-cv-04198-JSC Document 57 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

has previously filed an amended complaint. Wagh v. Metris Direct, Inc., 363 F.3d 821, 830 (9th 

Cir. 2003).

Plaintiff seeks to file a second amended complaint in order to add a new claim against a 

new defendant. "A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may 

join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party." 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Accordingly, “multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A 

against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” George v. 

Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff wishes to add a new claim against a San 

Francisco police officer for allegedly using excessive force during Plaintiff’s arrest. His pending 

claims are against officers of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department for using excessive force, 

not during his arrest but on different occasions in the San Francisco County Jail and in the jail’s 

medical unit at San Francisco General Hospital. Granting leave to file the second amended 

complaint would therefore result in Plaintiff having unrelated claims against different defendants 

in a single lawsuit. "Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits," not 

only to prevent the sort of “morass” that a multi-claim, multi-defendant suit can produce, "but also 

to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees – for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 

three the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of 

required fees." Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Plaintiff may bring his new claim of excessive 

force during his arrest in a new lawsuit, but he may not add it to this case in a second amended 

complaint. Accordingly, the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time in which to file an opposition to the motion for 

summary judgment is GRANTED. His opposition is due on or before October 30, 2016. 

Defendants shall file a reply brief within 14 days of the date any opposition is filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04198-JSC Document 57 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 2