Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01703/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01703-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD GLASS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

A. GREGORY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01703-RRB

ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO AMEND COMPLAINT

I. PENDING MOTION

At Docket 22 Plaintiff Donald Glass has moved for leave to file an amended

Complaint in compliance with the Court’s prior Order. The record reflects that after

screening the Complaint the Court permitted Glass to proceed on his excessive force claim

against Defendants A. Gregory and S. Duran; in all other respects the Complaint was

dismissed without leave to amend.1 Defendants Gregory and Duran have answered the

Complaint,2

 and the Court has entered its Discovery and Scheduling Order.3

II. AMENDED COMPLAINT

In his Amended Complaint, in addition to the excessive force claim against Gregory

and Duran (Fourth Cause of Action), Glass asserts three additional causes of action

against eight others: Correctional Officer J. McAllister; Correctional Officer J. Anderson;

1 Docket 8.

2 Docket 14.

3 Docket 15.

Case 1:14-cv-01703-RRB Document 23 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 6
Correctional Officer M. Chavez; Correctional Sgt. M. Bremmer; Correctional Lt. J. Ybarra; 

Correctional Lt. S. Wilson; Nurse A. Vilches; and Licensed Vocational Nurse W. Tredwell. 

In his proposed First Cause of Action Glass asserts a retaliation claim against McAllister,

Ybarra, Wilson, Bremmer, Anderson, and Chavez. In his Second Cause of Action, Glass

asserts an excessive force claim also against McAllister, Ybarra, Wilson, Bremmer,

Anderson, and Chavez. In his Third Cause of Action Glass asserts a deliberate medical

indifference claim against Vilches, Tredwell, Wilson and Bremmer. 

III. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

As the Court noted in its earlier Order striking Glass’ first attempt to file his amended

complaint, the Amended Complaint is subject to screening.

4

In addition to the usual

screening requirements, the Court must determine whether the proposed Amended

Complaint satisfies the applicable standards for amending a complaint.

IV. STANDARD

Analysis starts with the general rule that leave to amend should be “freely given

when justice so requires.”5Leave to amend a complaint should be freely given in the

absence of any apparent or declared reasons such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory

motive on part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments

previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by allowing the amendment, and

futility of amendment.6

4 Docket 20.

5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

6 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West,

Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2006).

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Glass v. Gregory, 1:14-cv-01703-RRB – 2

Case 1:14-cv-01703-RRB Document 23 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 6
If feasible, a person may be joined either as plaintiff or defendant if the joinder will

not deprive the court of jurisdiction and in the absence of the person to be joined either: 

(1) complete relief can not be granted; or (2) the person claims an interest in the subject

of the suit and absence may (i) impair or impede the ability to protect that interest or (ii)

leave parties already party to the suit subject to a substantial risk of incurring multiple or

inconsistent obligations.7 

With respect to joinder of parties, the Rules provide:

(a) PERSONS WHO MAY JOIN OR BE JOINED.

* * * *

(2) Defendants. Persons—as well as a vessel, cargo, or other property

subject to admiralty process in rem—may be joined in one action as

defendants if:

(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in

the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction,

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and 

(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in

the action.8

V. DISCUSSION

The issue before the Court is the nexus of the first three causes of action (against

McAllister, Anderson, Chavez, Bremmer, Ybarra, Wilson, Vilches, and Tredwell) to the

fourth (against Gregory and Duran). The proposed Amended Complaint adds eight new

defendants, as well as three new claims unrelated to the claim against Gregory and Duran.

Initially, the Court notes that, even absent joinder of McAllister, Anderson, Chavez,

Bremmer, Ybarra, Wilson, Vilches, and Tredwell, complete relief can be granted with

respect to the claims against Gregory and Duran. Nor does the failure to join McAllister,

7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a).

8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a).

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Glass v. Gregory, 1:14-cv-01703-RRB – 3

Case 1:14-cv-01703-RRB Document 23 Filed 09/04/15 Page 3 of 6
Anderson, Chavez, Bremmer, Ybarra, Wilson,Vilches, and Tredwell either impair the ability

of either those Defendants or Glass to protect their interests, or subject them to any risk

of incurring multiple or inconsistent obligations. Thus, the proposed Amended Complaint

does not fall within the parameters of Rule 19(a).

The commonality is that Glass’ claims against the Defendants arise out of his

incarceration at Kern Valley State Prison. Standing alone, that both his Second and Fourth

Causes of Action involve excessive force claims, is insufficient to support a determination

that they arise out of the same series of transactions. Although it is alleged that McAllister,

Ybarra, Wilson, Bremmer, Anderson, and Chavez acted in concert with each other, there

is no allegation they acted in concert with Gregory and/or Duran.9 Indeed, the Amended

Complaint itself clearly and distinctly differentiates between the acts of McAllister, Ybarra,

Wilson, Bremmer, Anderson, and Chavez on the one hand and Gregory and Duran on the

other.

The only apparent “prejudice” Glass might suffer is that he will be required to pay

a separate filing fee. The Seventh Circuit addressed that issue.

[T]hat unrelated claims against different defendants belong in separate

lawsuits, not only to prevent the sort of morass produced by multi-claim,

multi-defendants suits like this one, but also to ensure that prisoners pay all

fees required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, see 28 U.S.C. §

1915(b), (g). Complaints like this one from Owens should be rejected, . . .,

either by severing the action into separate lawsuits or by dismissing

improperly joined defendants.10

9 Glass’ vague, conclusory statement of the existence of some general conspiracy is

insufficient. See United Broth. of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Building and Const. Trades

Dep’t, AFL–CIO, 770 F.3d 834, 842 (9th Cir. 2014); Kendall v. Visa USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1042, 1047

(9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombley, 544 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)).

10 Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted) (citing George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)).

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Glass v. Gregory, 1:14-cv-01703-RRB – 4

Case 1:14-cv-01703-RRB Document 23 Filed 09/04/15 Page 4 of 6
The Court agrees with the rationale of the Seventh Circuit. Congress has adequately

provided for relief from the filing fee requirement. The Court can perceive no principled

reason to extend that relief further.

Even if amendment were permitted, it would not relate back to the filing of the

original Complaint. An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original

pleading if: (1) permitted by the applicable statute of limitations; (2) arises out of the same

conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading; or (3) changes the

party or naming of a party if (2) is satisfied and the party to be named had notice of the

action within the time permitted for service of a complaint under Federal Rule Civil

Procedure 4(m) and knew or should have known that, but for the mistake in identity, he

would have been named originally.

11 As noted above, to the extent it adds the claims

against McAllister, Ybarra, Wilson, Bremmer, Anderson, and Chavez, the proposed

Amended Complaint clearly does not arise of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence

alleged in the Complaint. Thus, because the proposed Amended Complaint does not

relate back, requiring Glass to bring an entirely new action against McAllister, Anderson,

Chavez, Bremmer, Ybarra, Wilson, Vilches, and Tredwell, would not necessarily bar Glass

from bringing his action against them in a separate action.

VI. ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend His (Pleadings)

Complaint at Docket 22 is DENIED without prejudice. If Plaintiff desires to further pursue

his claims against Correctional Officer J. McAllister; Correctional Officer J. Anderson;

11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c).

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Glass v. Gregory, 1:14-cv-01703-RRB – 5

Case 1:14-cv-01703-RRB Document 23 Filed 09/04/15 Page 5 of 6
Correctional Officer M. Chavez; Correctional Sgt. M. Bremmer; Correctional Lt. J. Ybarra; 

Correctional Lt. S. Wilson; Nurse A. Vilches; and Licensed Vocational Nurse W. Tredwell,

he must do so in a separate action. The Court renders no opinion as to the viability of

those claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of September, 2015.

S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Glass v. Gregory, 1:14-cv-01703-RRB – 6

Case 1:14-cv-01703-RRB Document 23 Filed 09/04/15 Page 6 of 6