Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01938/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01938-3/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT MARK BROWN, II, Civil

No. 12-CV-1938-GPC (BGS)

Plaintiff,

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S

VARIOUS MOTIONS TO AMEND

COMPLAINT

v.

DEPUTY #1, Deputy Sheriff; et al.,

Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION

Currently before the Court are multiple motions by Plaintiff Robert Mark Brown,

II (“Plaintiff”) requesting to add defendants to his complaint and to extend the time in

which to join other parties, amend the pleadings, or file additional pleadings. (Doc. Nos.

53, 57, 59, 64, 69.) San Diego County Counsel, representing current Defendants Erick

Villarreal and Jason Weber (“Defendants”), filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motions.

(Doc. No. 79.) In their opposition, Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s request to file an

amended complaint and add additional deputy defendants. (Id. at 5.) Defendants,

however, object to Plaintiff adding the County of San Diego (“County”) and Sheriff

William Gore (“Gore”) as defendants because Defendants believe that Plaintiff’s claim

against the County and Gore is based on the Plaintiff being denied access to a law library.

(Id. at 5.) After considering the briefing and for the reasons stated below, IT IS

1 12cv1938-GPC

Case 3:12-cv-01938-GPC-BGS Document 82 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 8
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

RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement his Complaint by adding

Sheriff William Gore and the County of San Diego (Doc. No. 64) be DENIED; Plaintiff’s

Motion for leave to Amend his Complaint to add Deputy Garcia, Henton, Pierson,

Lawson and Whittaker as Defendants (Doc. Nos. 53, 59, 69) be GRANTED; and

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 57) be DISMISSED as moot. 

II. BACKGROUND

On August 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. section 1983

alleging that Defendants violated his civil rights for, among other things, using excessive

force resulting in severe injuries. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff did not know the identities of all

of the guards who allegedly violated his rights, so he identified them as “Deputy” in his

complaint. (Id.) After the parties engaged in discovery, Plaintiff identified the guards

referenced in the complaint and discovered the names of additional defendants that

allegedly violated his civil rights. (Doc. Nos. 53, 59, 64, 69.) Plaintiff has since filed

various motions requesting leave to add the new defendants. (Id.) The Court ordered

Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s motions. (Doc. Nos. 60, 70.) On May 24, 2013,

Plaintiff filed their Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions to Amend. (Doc. No.

79.)

A. Motions to Add Additional Deputies as Defendants

On April 26, 2013, nunc pro tunc to April 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to add

Deputy Lauset Garcia as a Defendant in this action, identifying him as Doe Deputy No. 5

referenced in his complaint. (Doc. No. 53.) Plaintiff alleges that Deputy Garcia was

“involved in the assault” against him. (Id. at 1.) On April 26, 2013, nunc pro tunc to April

12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to add Deputy Scott Henton and Deputy Robert Pierson

as Defendants in this action, identifying them as Doe Deputy No. 3 and Doe Deputy No.

5, respectively, referenced in his complaint. (Doc. No. 59.) Plaintiff does not make any

factual allegations in support of this motion. On May 2, 2013, nunc pro tunc to April 30,

2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to again add Deputy Lauset Garcia as a Defendant,

along with two new deputies, Michael Lawson and L. Whittaker. (Doc. No. 69.) In

2 12cv1938-GPC

Case 3:12-cv-01938-GPC-BGS Document 82 Filed 06/24/13 Page 2 of 8
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

support of this motion, Plaintiff alleges that “[a]ll three deputys [sic] were present on the

scene of the incident on May 2, 2012 and had ampel [sic] opportunity to intervene in the

alleged assault against [him] and did nothing to stop it.” (Doc. No. 69 at 1-2.)

B. Motion to Add Sheriff William Gore and County of San Diego as Defendants

On May 2, 2013, nunc pro tunc to April 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to add

Sheriff William Gore and the County of San Diego as Defendants. (Doc. No. 64.) In

support of this motion, Plaintiff alleges that “since this case is pending I have been denied

physical access to the law library and legal research needed in order to adequately

represent myself in this case, and all my grievances submitted to jail officials concerning

this matter have been denied.” (Id. at 1.) 

C. Motion for Second Extension of Time to Join Parties, Amend Pleadings, or File Additional Pleadings

On April 26, 2013, nunc pro tunc to April 3, 2013, Plaintiff also filed a motion for

a second extension of time of the deadline to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or

to file additional pleadings. (Doc. No. 57.)

D. Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motions

On May 24, 2013, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff’s motions. (Doc.

No. 79.) While Defendants did not oppose Plaintiff’s request to add the deputy

defendants and file an amended complaint, Defendants object to Plaintiff’s request to add

the County and Gore as defendants. (Id. at 5.) Defendants believe that Plaintiff wished

to add the County and Gore because Plaintiff wishes to add a claim that he was denied

access to the law library in violation of his civil rights. (Id.) Defendants argue that the

facts which underlie Plaintiff’s new claim of denial of access to a law library “do not

arise out of the same operative facts as those set out in the original complaint,” and

therefore Plaintiff should not be allowed to amend his complaint to include the claim. 

(Id.) 

///

3 12cv1938-GPC

Case 3:12-cv-01938-GPC-BGS Document 82 Filed 06/24/13 Page 3 of 8
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

III. ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint to Add Sheriff William Gore and the County of San Diego as Defendants 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend His Complaint Should be Treated as a Motion to Supplement the Complaint

A supplemental pleading is used to allege relevant facts occurring after the original

pleading was filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d); Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473-74 (9th Cir.

1988); Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Lanahan & Reilley LLP, 2011 WL 3741004, *5 (N.D.

Cal. 2011). A supplemental pleading is designed to bring the action “up to date” and to

set forth new facts affecting the controversy that may have occurred since the original

pleading was filed. Manning v. City of Auburn, 953 F.3d 1355, 1259-60 (11th Cir. 1992).

This distinguishes it from an amended pleading, which relates to matters existing when

the original pleading was filed. ConnectU LLC v. Zuckerberg, 522 F.3d 82, 90 (1st Cir.

2008). The title of the pleading is not determinative. I.e., a pleading labeled “amended

pleading” will be treated as a supplemental pleading if the new facts alleged occurred

after the original complaint was filed. United States ex rel Wulff v. CMA, Inc., 890 F.2d

1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Here, Plaintiff’s motion regarding Sheriff Gore and the County of San Diego sets

forth allegations concerning matters which took place after the original complaint was

filed. Therefore, the motion should be treated as a motion to supplement rather than a

motion to amend. See Eid v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 621 F.3d 858, 874 (9th Cir. 2010). In

his Motion, Plaintiff is requesting to add Sheriff Gore and the County as Defendants

because he has been denied physical access to the law library “since this case is pending”

and the inability to access the law library has impeded his ability to “adequately represent

[himself] in this case.” (Doc. No. 64 at 1.) By Defendant’s own admission, the denial of

access to the law library occurred after the original complaint was filed and took place at

detention facilities other than the one where the original alleged violation against Plaintiff

4 12cv1938-GPC

Case 3:12-cv-01938-GPC-BGS Document 82 Filed 06/24/13 Page 4 of 8
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

occurred.1 Therefore, any request to add Defendants with respect to these allegations

should be treated as a motion to supplement the complaint.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint Should be Denied

A supplemental pleading may properly allege events occurring after the original

complaint was filed and identify any new parties involved therein. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure (“FRCP”) Rule 15(d) “plainly permits supplemental amendments to cover

events happening after suit, and it follows, of course, that persons participating in these

new events may be added if necessary.” Griffin v. County School Board of Prince

Edward County, 377 U.S. 218, 226-17 (1964). Unlike other pleading rules, there is no

“transactional” test in Rule 15(d). “While some relationship must exist between the newly

alleged matters and the subject of the original action, they need not all arise out of the

same transaction.” Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 474 (9th Cir. 1988). Rule 15(d) permits

the filing of a supplemental pleading that introduces a cause of action not alleged in the

complaint based on facts not in existence when the original complaint was filed. Cabrera

v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 382 (9th Cir. 1998). Leave to file a

supplemental pleading will be denied, however, where the supplemental pleading asserts

new and distinct claims unrelated to the original complaint and that should be the subject

of a separate lawsuit. A supplemental complaint would not promote judicial efficiency in

such cases because the entire controversy between the parties may not be settled in a

single action. See Planned Parenthood of So. Arizona v. Neely, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th

Cir. 1997).

Rule 15(d) does not expressly state if and under what circumstances supplemental

pleadings relate back to the original pleading for statute of limitations purposes. Even so,

courts often apply relation back principles under Rule 15(c) to Rule 15(d). When the

1

Plaintiff’s original complaint was for actions by guards against Plaintiff while he was at George

Bailey Detention Center. (Doc. No. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff filed the complaint and initiated the lawsuit,

however, while he was at Vista Detention Facility. (Id.) Plaintiff has since been transferred to San Diego

Central Jail and is currently being housed there. (Doc. No. 40 at 1.)

5 12cv1938-GPC

Case 3:12-cv-01938-GPC-BGS Document 82 Filed 06/24/13 Page 5 of 8
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

supplemental complaint raises claims unrelated to the allegations in the original

complaint, or relies on conduct or events different from those pleaded in the original

complaint, there is no “relation back”. William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT

Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1057 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Here, Plaintiff’s possible cause of action for denial of law library access while at

Vista Detention Facility and San Diego Central Jail is not related to his claims that

Defendants used excessive force on Plaintiff, committed a sexual orientation hate crime,

and violated his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment while Plaintiff was

detained at George Bailey Detention Facility. A supplemental complaint adding Sheriff

Gore and the County would not promote judicial efficiency because the claim for denial

of law library access is a new and distinct claim unrelated to the original complaint and is

more appropriately the subject of a separate lawsuit. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to

supplement his complaint to add Sheriff Gore and the County of San Diego as

Defendants should be DENIED. 

B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend to Add Additional Deputies as Defendants Should be Granted

Plaintiff is also requesting to amend his complaint under Rule 15(a)(2), adding

additional Deputies that were either involved or present at the time of the alleged harm to

Plaintiff while he was at George Bailey Detention Facility. (Doc. Nos. 53, 59, 69.)

Because Plaintiff’s allegations against these new Deputies concerns events which took

place before the original pleading was filed and Plaintiff is not amending as a matter of

course, Plaintiff is requesting to amend his complaint under Rule 15(a)(2). Rule 15(a)(2)

states “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or

with the court’s leave. The Court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Although Rule 15(a) gives the trial court discretion over this matter,

[the Ninth Circuit has] repeatedly stressed that the court must remain guided by ‘the

underlying purpose of Rule 15 . . . to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the

pleadings or technicalities.’” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). 

6 12cv1938-GPC

Case 3:12-cv-01938-GPC-BGS Document 82 Filed 06/24/13 Page 6 of 8
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

Leave to amend should be granted more liberally to pro se plaintiffs. See Ramirez v.

Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 861 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Five factors are taken into account “to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to

amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment,

and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley,

356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). Upon review of the five factors, the Court

recommends that Plaintiff be granted leave to amend to add deputy defendants.

Applied here, all of the factors above favor granting Plaintiff leave to amend.

Defendants present no evidence demonstrating that Plaintiff is amending his complaint in

bad faith. Plaintiff is not requesting to amend his complaint to create undue delay because

Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint as soon as he discovered the identities of the

defendants he wished to add. (Doc. Nos. 53, 59, 69.) Defendants have not alleged that

they would be prejudiced by the amendment, and in fact suggest that Plaintiff be allowed

to amend to add Deputy Defendants so that they can have fair notice of the claims against

them. (Doc. No. 79 at 4-5.) Amendment to add Deputy Defendants would not be futile

because Plaintiff will have the opportunity to provide factual allegations to support his

claims against Deputy Defendants and said Defendants will have the opportunity to

challenge those allegations. Lastly, this is only Plaintiff’s first request to amend his

complaint. In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, Defendant’s non-opposition to amendment,

and the general policy of resolution of cases on the merits, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to

Amend to add Deputy Garcia, Henton, Pierson, Lawson and Whittaker should be

GRANTED. Plaintiff is urged to file an amended pleading stating the factual allegations

as to each of the newly named deputies, to which each of them will have the opportunity

to respond. 

C. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time Should be Dismissed as Moot

On April 26, 2013 nunc pro tunc to April 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for

Extension of Time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, or file additional pleadings.

(Doc. No. 57.) Plaintiff bases his request on the allegation that Defendant’s Attorney was

7 12cv1938-GPC

Case 3:12-cv-01938-GPC-BGS Document 82 Filed 06/24/13 Page 7 of 8
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

not cooperating. Defendant denies this allegation and points out that Defendant has

timely responded to Plaintiff’s discovery request. (Doc. No. 79-1 at 1-2.) Because the

Court recommends granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint to add

additional Deputy Defendants, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time is moot. 

IV. CONCLUSION

This report and recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge is submitted

to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provision of 28

U.S.C. section 636(b)(1). Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the complaint to add Sheriff William Gore and

the County of San Diego as Defendants (Doc. No. 64) be DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add Deputy Garcia, Henton,

Pierson, Lawson and Whittaker (Doc. Nos. 53, 59, 69) be GRANTED; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion to extend the time in which to join other parties, amend the

pleadings, or file additional pleadings be DISMISSED AS MOOT.. 

IT IS ORDERED that no later than July 5, 2013 any party to this action may file

written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with

the Court and served on all parties within 10 days of being served with the objections.

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan,

158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2013 

BERNARD G. SKOMAL

United States Magistrate Judge

8 12cv1938-GPC

Case 3:12-cv-01938-GPC-BGS Document 82 Filed 06/24/13 Page 8 of 8