Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00444/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00444-8/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Patrick M. McMillian is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

I.

RELEANT BACKGROUND

This action is proceeding against Defendants O. Delgado, N. Romero, D. Brown, C. Riley, B. 

Jones, M. Negrete, and J. Dunnahoe for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on July 1, 2019. After an unsuccessful settlement 

conference, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order on September 11, 2019. 

///

///

PATRICK M. McMILLIAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

O. DELGADO, et.al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-00444-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER VACATING DECEMBER 9, 2019 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

[ECF No. 26]

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO AMEND BE GRANTED

[ECF Nos. 23, 24, 28]

Case 1:19-cv-00444-NONE-SAB Document 29 Filed 01/16/20 Page 1 of 5
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

On November 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint, along with a proposed 

amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 23, 24.) Defendants filed an opposition on December 9, 2019. (ECF 

No. 25.) 

On December 9, 2019, the Court issued a Findings and Recommendation recommending that 

Plaintiff’s motion to amend be denied. Plaintiff sought to amend the complaint because he 

“determined that excessive force is not his cause of action.” (ECF No. 23, at 1.) “Plaintiff realizes 

that the appropriate cause of action is Negligence.” (Id.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to 

amend because he failed to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act. (ECF No. 26.) 

On December 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation, along 

with a separate motion for leave to correct and amend the complaint to reflect that he has complied 

with the Government Claims Act. (ECF Nos. 27, 28.) 

II.

DISCUSSION

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party=s pleading 

once as a matter of course twenty-one days after serving, or if a response was filed, within twenty-one 

days after service of the response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Otherwise, a party may amend only by 

leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice 

so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 

Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires.’” 

AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices 

the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is 

futile.” AmerisourceBergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 951. Relevant to the futility factor, a plaintiff may not 

bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens 

v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). The 

burden to demonstrate prejudice falls upon the party opposing the amendment. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. 

Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the 

remaining three factors, a presumption exists under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. 

Case 1:19-cv-00444-NONE-SAB Document 29 Filed 01/16/20 Page 2 of 5
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

27

28

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). Further, undue delay 

alone is insufficient to justify denial of a motion to amend. Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 758 (9th 

Cir. 1999). However, “[f]utility of amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of a motion for leave to 

amend. Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 814, 845 (9th Cir. 1995); Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, 845 F.2d 209, 

214 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint because he “determined that excessive force is not his 

cause of action.” (ECF No. 23, at 1.) “Plaintiff realizes that the appropriate cause of action is 

Negligence.” (Id.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend because he failed to allege 

compliance with the Government Claims Act. (ECF No. 26.) In his December 20, 2019, objections to 

the Findings and Recommendations and motion to correct and/amend the complaint, Plaintiff contends 

that he has complied with the Government Claims Act. (ECF Nos. 27, 28.) In the amended 

complaint, Plaintiff alleges “[t]he negligence violated Plaintiff McMillan’s rights and constituted cruel 

and unusual punishment under the 8th. Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (ECF No. 24 

at 4.) Liberally construing Plaintiff’s amended complaint, as this Court must, it appears that Plaintiff 

is attempting to proceed on both a claim for excessive force and negligence. 

The Court finds no bad faith or futility in Plaintiff’s proposed amendment. The proposed 

amended complaint arises from the same events in the original complaint. In addition, the Court does 

not find undue delay or prejudice to Defendants in allowing Plaintiff to amend to add a state law claim 

of negligence at this juncture. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), in any civil action in which the district court has original 

jurisdiction, the district court “shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims in the action 

within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III 

[of the Constitution],” with specific exceptions. “Pendent jurisdiction over state claims exists when 

the federal claim is sufficiently substantial to confer federal jurisdiction, and there is a ‘common 

nucleus of operative fact between the state and federal claims.’” Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 816 

(9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Gilder v. PGA Tour, Inc., 936 F.2d 417, 421 (9th Cir. 1991)). “[O]nce 

judicial power exists under § 1367(a), retention of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims 

under 1367(c) is discretionary.” Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Case 1:19-cv-00444-NONE-SAB Document 29 Filed 01/16/20 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Here, because the Court has determined that Plaintiff states a cognizable Eighth Amendment 

claim against Defendants O. Delgado, N. Romero, D. Brown, C. Riley, B. Jones, M. Negrete, and J. 

Dunnahoe pursuant to § 1983, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, will also exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s California negligence claim, which appears to rise from the 

same case or controversy as Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim. However, at this stage of the 

proceedings, the Court makes no determination as to the viability of Plaintiff’s negligence claim. See, 

e.g., King v. Chokatos, No. 1:12-cv-1936-LJO-GSA-PC, 2015 WL 5834230, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 

2015). Accordingly, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s motion to amend be granted, and this 

action proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim and California negligence claim. 

III.

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that The December 9, 2019 Findings and 

Recommendation (ECF No. 26) is VACATED.

Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint (ECF No. 23) be granted; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to file the amended complaint lodged on November 15, 

2019 (ECF No. 24). 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:19-cv-00444-NONE-SAB Document 29 Filed 01/16/20 Page 4 of 5
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

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00444-NONE-SAB Document 29 Filed 01/16/20 Page 5 of 5