Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00509/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00509-4/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

1

Doc. No. 58 is titled “Supplemental Complaint.” However, supplemental

complaints are only appropriate when a party complains of a “transaction, occurrence,

or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented .” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(d) (emphasis added). Here, Plaintiff filed a complaint in March 2007, and

a first amended complaint in April 2007. Doc. Nos. 1 & 3. Both of these concern

Defendants’ alleged wrongdoing during a January 2007 arrest. Id. Doc. No. 58 does not

describe events occurring after the previous complaints were filed; rather, it attempts

to add claims based on the same arrest. The Court therefore construes Doc. No. 58 as

a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. See U.S. ex rel. Wulff v. CMA,

Inc., 890 F.2d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 1989) (court may construe pleadings based on

substance rather than title, and whether pleading is labeled “supplemental pleading”

rather than “amended complaint” is “immaterial”). 

07cv509-W (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES BECKNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

EL CAJON POLICE DEPARTMENT, et

al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07cv509-W (BLM)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Doc. No. 58]

On April 29, 2008, Plaintiff in the above matter filed a

supplemental complaint, which the Court construes as a motion for leave

to file second amended complaint.1 Doc. No. 58 (“Motion”). The Court

issued a briefing schedule, set a hearing date for May 23, 2008, and

took the motion under submission. Doc. No. 59. Based on a review of

Case 3:07-cv-00509-W-BLM Document 63 Filed 06/02/08 Page 1 of 5
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

2

The district judge dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff’s original complaint

for failure to pay the filing fee. Doc. Nos. 1 & 2. The currently operative claims

are thus contained in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Doc. No. 3. 

2 07cv509-W (BLM)

Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant’s Response (Doc. No. 61), and the record

as a whole, the Court DENIES the Motion for the following reasons. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In January 2007, El Cajon Police Officers Jacob Cutting, Sean Webb,

T. Mandsur, and Ehler (full names unknown) responded to a call reporting

an individual who had attempted to cash a stolen check. Doc. No. 50 at

3-10 (police reports). When the officers arrived at the store,

Plaintiff, who matched the description of the suspect, fled. Id. The

officers pursued and tackled Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff struggled

against the officers and, as they were attempting to handcuff and subdue

him, the officers dislocated Plaintiff’s elbow, injured his nose, and

caused cuts, scrapes and an allegedly broken thumb. Id. at 11-13

(medical reports); First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) at 8.2 After

handcuffing Plaintiff, the officers called the paramedics, who confirmed

that Plaintiff’s elbow was broken. Id. at 4, 8; FAC at 8. Plaintiff

subsequently was taken to the police station for processing, and then to

the hospital for his injuries. Id. at 8; FAC at 8. 

On September 10, 2007, Plaintiff pled guilty in San Diego Superior

Court to commercial burglary and resisting arrest, in violation of

California Penal Code §§ 69 & 470. Doc. No. 21-2. While incarcerated,

Plaintiff sued the officers involved in his arrest and the City of El

Cajon. FAC. Plaintiff alleges that defendant officers “brutally beat”

him and subsequently denied him proper, and sufficiently prompt, health

care, in violation of the Constitution, civil rights statutes, and laws

of tort. Id. Plaintiff also claims that the officers and City of El

Cajon have adopted “the custom and policy of denying individuals in

Case 3:07-cv-00509-W-BLM Document 63 Filed 06/02/08 Page 2 of 5
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

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion to amend should be judged by Rule

15(a)(2), which states that “a court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice

so requires.” However, as discussed above, the proper standard is that of “good

cause,” as articulated in Rule 16(b)(4). Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Coleman, 232 F.3d

at 1294-95; Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

3 07cv509-W (BLM)

their care proper medical attention.” Id. at 4. Defendants raise a

number of affirmative defenses, including Plaintiff’s contributory

negligence, and Defendants’ qualified and absolute immunity based on

their good-faith actions and status as government actors. Answer at 2-

4. 

In December 2007, the district judge partially granted Defendants’

motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC. Doc. No. 29. Defendants answered

the remaining claims in January 2008. Answer. Plaintiff filed the

instant motion on April 29, 2008. Motion. 

DISCUSSION

Per this Court’s scheduling order, Plaintiff was required to file

any motion to amend the pleadings by March 17, 2008. Doc. No. 32.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on April 29, 2008, almost six weeks

after the deadline. Motion. Because he moved to amend after the

deadline for doing so had passed, this Court will only grant his motion

upon a showing of “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Coleman v.

Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (Rule 16 “good cause” standard

applies if motion to amend filed after deadline set in scheduling

order); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609.3

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause, or even argue that it exists.

When assessing whether good cause exists to grant leave to amend,

the court “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the

amendment.” Coleman, 232 F.3d at 1294 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at

609). And, “[i]f the party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

Case 3:07-cv-00509-W-BLM Document 63 Filed 06/02/08 Page 3 of 5
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 07cv509-W (BLM)

Plaintiff makes no showing of diligence. The proposed second

amended complaint contains two claims against two new defendants.

Motion. The first claim alleges that the San Diego Sheriff’s Department

inflicted cruel and unusual punishment when it injured Plaintiff during

the course of the arrest and subsequently denied him proper and

sufficiently prompt medical care. Id. The second claim contends that

the San Diego Superior Court violated Plaintiff’s constitutional right

to a speedy trial. Id. Both of these claims are predicated upon facts

that occurred in January 2007, and of which Plaintiff was aware when he

filed his original complaint. Doc. No. 1. In fact, the first proposed

claim contains allegations identical to those listed in the complaint.

Id.; Motion.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-00509-W-BLM Document 63 Filed 06/02/08 Page 4 of 5
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 07cv509-W (BLM)

Further, Plaintiff already amended his pleadings once, when he

filed the FAC. The two claims he hopes to introduce now, more than one

year after he filed the FAC, were available to him at that time.

Plaintiff does not show that he was unable to make these claims at that

time, nor does he argue that this Court’s scheduling order could not

“reasonably [have been] met despite the diligence of the party seeking

the extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citation omitted). Rather,

he offers no evidence of diligence whatsoever. See id. (“carelessness

is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for

a grant of relief”). Absent a showing of diligence, “the inquiry should

end.” Id. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended

complaint is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 2, 2008

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO:

HONORABLE THOMAS J. WHELAN

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-00509-W-BLM Document 63 Filed 06/02/08 Page 5 of 5