Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03268/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03268-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN DEVINCENZI,

Plaintiff, No. CIV-S-11-3268 KJM-DAD 

vs.

CITY OF CHICO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

This matter is before the court on the motion to dismiss the First Amended

Complaint (“FAC”) filed by defendants City of Chico, Regan Ortega, Stephen Dyke, David

Quigley, Mike Frakes, Renee Anderson, Jose Lara, Shawn Millar, York Insurance Services, and

Karen Peacock (collectively, “defendants”). Plaintiff concedes that the majority of his claims

lack merit, but opposes dismissing his claim based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution. (Opp’n at 2:5-11, ECF 26.) In his opposition, plaintiff specifically requests

leave to amend to cure the defects in his complaint. The matter was submitted without oral

argument. The court finds amendment appropriate and therefore grants plaintiff’s request and

denies defendant’s motion without prejudice. 

/////

/////

1

Case 2:11-cv-03268-KJM-EFB Document 32 Filed 08/29/12 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

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

On December 9, 2009, plaintiff called the police due to a disturbance. (FAC ¶ 14.)

When the police arrived, plaintiff was arrested on alcohol related charges and taken into custody.

(FAC ¶ 15.) When he was arrested he was searched; however, the arresting officers did not

discover or remove the lighter in plaintiff’s pocket. (FAC ¶ 16.) During this episode, plaintiff’s

inebriation was apparent. (FAC ¶ 17.) While in custody, plaintiff threatened to harm himself.

(FAC ¶ 19.) The officers overheard plaintiff’s threats. (FAC ¶ 20.) At some point, plaintiff was

transferred to a Police Transport Van. (FAC ¶ 15.) While in this van, plaintiff attempted to light

a cigarette and he was badly burned. (FAC ¶¶ 21, 23.) Defendant officers ignored plaintiff’s cries

for help. (FAC ¶ 22.) Plaintiff suffered third degree burns over thirty-two percent of his body.

(FAC ¶ 23.) Plaintiff does not identify the individual defendants or otherwise indicate who

ignored his cries for help. 

II. ANALYSIS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states “[t]he court should freely give

leave [to amend its pleading] when justice so requires” and the Ninth Circuit has “stressed Rule

15’s policy of favoring amendments.” Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149,

1160 (9th Cir. 1989). “In exercising its discretion [regarding granting or denying leave to

amend] ‘a court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 -- to facilitate decision on

the merits rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.’” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833

F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir.

1981)). However, “the liberality in granting leave to amend is subject to several limitations.

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.” Ascon Properties, 866 F.2d at 1160 (internal citations omitted). In addition, a court

should look to whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint, as “the district

/////

2

Case 2:11-cv-03268-KJM-EFB Document 32 Filed 08/29/12 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

court’s discretion is especially broad ‘where the court has already given a plaintiff one or more

opportunities to amend [its] complaint.’” Id. at 1161 (quoting Leighton, 833 F.2d at 186 n.3).

Defendants claim the allegations in the FAC are overly vague and fail to state a

claim. In addition, defendants argue they are protected by qualified immunity but unable to

properly address immunity because plaintiff fails to identify actions of particular officers in his

pleading. In his request for leave to amend, plaintiff states he is in the process of obtaining

information that would allow the pleadings to be more specific. Moreover, plaintiff’s opposition

briefing is not entirely clear on which claims are waived because he appears to reserve positions

that are unrelated to the Fourteenth Amendment claim he still wishes to pursue. See Opp’n at 2.

At the same time, it does not appear that amendment will be futile. 

Judicial resources are best preserved by allowing plaintiff to amend his complaint,

make clear which claims are waived and clarify his theory of the case before the court resolves

defendants’ motion. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to review the defense motion to dismiss, and

to meet and confer with defense counsel, before filing a second amended complaint. With any

amended complaint, counsel shall file a one page certification that he has complied with this

meet and confer directive. 

Plaintiff is granted twenty-one days from the date of this order to file an amended

complaint with the required certification. Defendants’ motion is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 28, 2012. 

3

Case 2:11-cv-03268-KJM-EFB Document 32 Filed 08/29/12 Page 3 of 3