Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00502/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00502-8/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

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL MACAHILAS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-502 GEB KJM P

vs.

R.N. TAYLOR, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants Taylor and Stores were deliberately indifferent to his

serious medical needs. These defendants filed their answer on April 9, 2008.

On April 23, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint in several

respects. First, he seeks to add defendants Galloway, Douglas, Williams, McAllister and Bauer. 

Second, he asks to amend the complaint to allege an Eighth Amendment violation. His proposed

amended complaint would dismiss Stores from the action, because he is not named in the

amended complaint; the proposed amended complaint also changes the allegations against

defendant Taylor so significantly that the court would not order service on her were it screening

this document. 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00502-GEB -KJM Document 33 Filed 06/23/08 Page 1 of 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

1

 Defendants make the fairly puzzling argument that the court should deny the motion

because of prejudice to the proposed new defendants. The inquiry mandated by the rule,

however, is whether the current defendants will be harmed by the amendment.

 Defendants’ argument about the statute of limitations also is not well taken. By their own

math, the action against them would be timely. 

2

Plaintiff alleges that he learned of the involvement of defendants Galloway,

McAllister, Bauer and Douglas when he reviewed his medical file. Defendant Williams is

identified only as the Chief Medical Officer of Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP); plaintiff does

not allege that he only recently learned of Dr. Williams’ involvement in medical care at MCSP.

Under Rule 15(a)(1)(B), (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, once a

responsive pleading has been filed, a plaintiff must obtain leave of the court before he may file

an amended complaint. Although leave to amend should be freely given, the court must also

determine whether “justice so requires.” See Caswell v. Calderon, 363 F.3d 832, 837 (9th Cir.

2004). In assessing the propriety of a motion for leave to amend, a court considers five factors:

(1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and

(5) whether plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805,

809 (9th Cir. 2004). A motion to amend may be denied if the amendment would be futile or

would prejudice the opposing party or when the plaintiff “knew or should have known of the

facts and theories raised by the amendment in the original pleading.” AmerisourceBergen

Corporation v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 953 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation,

citation omitted); Johnson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.3d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (prejudice to

the opposing party); Nunes v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d at 818 (futility alone can justify the denial of a

motion).1

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00502-GEB -KJM Document 33 Filed 06/23/08 Page 2 of 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 2

 The court is using the page numbers assigned by the CM/ECF system. 

3

A. Bauer, McAllister, Douglas and Galloway

Plaintiff alleges that on April 3, 2008, he reviewed his medical file maintained by

CDCR and discovered a number of documents he had not seen before, which showed the

involvement of these four proposed defendants. Defendants counter that these four proposed

defendants are named in exhibits attached to the complaint filed March 10, 2006. Defendants are

correct.

Plaintiff attached copies of medical records from CDCR as exhibit B to the

original complaint. One record, dated January 6, 2005, is a Health Care Services Request Form

documenting plaintiff’s request to be seen because he was coughing up blood; the response from

the triage nurse is signed by R. McAllister. Complaint (Compl.), Ex. B at 18.2 An undated

Emergency Care Record signed by C. Bauer recounts plaintiff’s difficulty in breathing and pain. 

Compl., Ex. B at 19. A page of physician’s orders dated December 23, 2004 contains an order

for cough drops, signed by Dr. Galloway. A page of interdisciplinary progress notes, although

hard to read, appears to be signed by G. Douglas and notes that an admission for pain was

complete with no evidence of disease. Compl., Ex. B at 21.

In his reply, plaintiff argues that he did not know of Dr. Douglas’s involvement

even when he was preparing the amended complaint until he received the complete form signed

by C. Bauer, for Dr. Douglas’s involvement is described on the back. Reply at Exs. 5-6. He

does not explain, however, why the page of interdisciplinary progress notes did not put him on

notice of Dr. Douglas’s role. He also does not address why the medical records attached to his

original complaint failed to provide sufficient information for him to include these proposed

defendants. Plaintiff knew or should have known about these defendants when he filed his

original complaint. 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00502-GEB -KJM Document 33 Filed 06/23/08 Page 3 of 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

4

B. Williams

Although plaintiff names Williams in the list of proposed new defendants, he does

not allege that Williams acted or failed to act during the time plaintiff was seeking treatment for

his pneumonia. Proposed Amended Complaint ¶ 7. He describes Williams as the Chief Medical

Officer of MCSP with broad duties and responsibilities. 

 A plaintiff must connect the named defendants clearly with the claimed denial of

his rights. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 843 (1994) (official’s liability for deliberate

indifference to assault requires that official know of and disregard an “excessive risk”); Taylor v.

List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“liability under section 1983 arises only upon a

showing of personal participation by the defendant (citation omitted) . . . [t]here is no respondeat

superior liability under section 1983.”); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.3d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978)

(discussing “requisite causal connection” in section 1983 cases between named defendant and

claimed injury); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525

U.S. 1154 (1999) ("A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an

individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights."). Plaintiff’s proposed

amended complaint does not satisfy these standards as to defendant Williams.

In his reply, plaintiff argues, in essence, that because Williams is a defendant in

other cases involving medical care, he is similarly liable in this case. That other complaints may

have been pleaded differently and appropriately against Dr. Williams does not render this

proposed amended complaint sufficient as to him. Allowing this amendment to go forward

would be futile. 

IT THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended

complaint (docket no. 27) is denied. 

DATED: June 20, 2008. 

2/maca0502.amd

Case 2:06-cv-00502-GEB -KJM Document 33 Filed 06/23/08 Page 4 of 4