Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01142/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01142-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of 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

JOHN L. ERVIN, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv1142 WQH

(BGS)

ORDER

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, and

DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is “Plaintiff’s Notice of State Proceedings Ended,”

filed by Plaintiff John L. Ervin. (ECF No. 27).

BACKGROUND

On May 6, 2014, Plaintiff John L. Ervin, proceeding pro se, initiated this action

by filing a Complaint, alleging that Defendant County of San Diego violated 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and seeking damages and injunctive relief. (ECF No. 1).

On May 28, 2014, Defendant filed a Motion to Stay the Action, or in the

alternative, Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 4). On July 21, 2014, the Court

issued an Order staying the action “pending final resolution of the related action

pending in San Diego County Superior Court.” (ECF No. 9 at 2). The July 21, 2014

Order stated that “[b]ased upon the agreement of the parties and the Court’s review of

the filings in this action, the Court finds that Younger abstention is appropriate due to

the pending state-court action captioned, Ervin v. San Diego County, San Diego County

Superior Court case number 37-2014-00000207-CU-WM-CTL” and stayed the action

- 1 - 14cv1142 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-01142-WQH-MSB Document 30 Filed 02/13/15 PageID.<pageID> 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

27

28

“pending final resolution of the related action pending in San Diego County Superior

Court.” (ECF No. 9 at 2). 

On January 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed the document titled “Plaintiff’s Notice of

State Proceedings Ended.” (ECF No. 27). Plaintiff asserts that “[p]ursuant to the

Court’s Order, dated July 21, 2014, Plaintiff intends to and hereby does notice that the

state-court action captioned, Ervin v. San Diego County, San Diego County Superior

Court case number 37-2014-00000207-CU-WM-CTL has finally concluded.” (ECF

No. 27 at 1). Plaintiff asserts that Defendant County of San Diego has held a second

and third administrative hearing, and the decision in the third administrative hearing

was final and received on January 27, 2015. Plaintiff requests the case be “immediately

reopened and that he be granted leave to amend his complaint to account for the

intervening facts including raising new causes of action and adding new defendants. 

Plaintiff will require one week from the date of the order to prepare the amended

complaint.” Id.

On February 3, 2015, the Court issued an Order construing Plaintiff’s Notice of

State Proceedings Ended as a Motion to Reopen the case and a Motion for Leave to

Amend. (ECF No. 28 at 2).

On February 10, 2015, Defendant County of San Diego filed an opposition. 

(ECF No. 29). Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case. See

ECF No. 29 at 2 (“Based upon Plaintiff’s implication that he will not be initiating

further writ proceedings in state court, the County does not dispute Plaintiff’s assertion

that the state action has concluded, and thus does not oppose the reopening of this

federal action.”). However, Defendant contends that the Court should deny Plaintiff’s

request for leave to amend his complaint because “Plaintiff violated the Southern

District’s Local Rules by not submitting any proposed amendment.” Id. Defendant

contends that the inability of the County to assess the timeliness, validity and/or

substance of any such amendment warrants the denial of Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

file an amended pleading. Id.

- 2 - 14cv1142 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-01142-WQH-MSB Document 30 Filed 02/13/15 PageID.<pageID> 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

27

28

I. Motion to Reopen

The parties do not dispute that the state court action has ended. The Motion to

Reopen is granted.

II. Motion for Leave to Amend

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 mandates that leave to amend “be freely given

when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with

extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th

Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). “When considering a motion for leave to amend, a

district court must consider whether the proposed amendment results from undue delay,

is made in bad faith, will cause prejudice to the opposing party, or is a dilatory tactic.” 

Chodos v. W. Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002). The Local Rules of the

Southern District state that “[a]ny motion to amend a pleading must be accompanied by:

(1) a copy of the proposed amended pleading, and (2) a version of the proposed

amended pleading that shows ---- through redlining, underlining, strikeouts, or other

similarly effective typographic methods --- how the proposed amended pleading differs

from the operative pleading.” CivLR 15.1(b).

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend is not accompanied by a copy of the

proposed amended pleading, or a version of the proposed amended pleading that shows

how the proposed amended pleading differs from the operative pleading. The failure

to attach a proposed amended pleading prevents the court from determining whether the

proposed amended complaint would result in undue delay, is made in bad faith, will

cause prejudice to Defendant, or is a dilatory tactic. See Chodos, 292 F.3d at 1003. 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend is denied.

//

//

//

//

- 3 - 14cv1142 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-01142-WQH-MSB Document 30 Filed 02/13/15 PageID.<pageID> 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

27

28

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen (ECF No. 27-1)

is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF

No. 27-2) is DENIED. Plaintiff may file a Motion for Leave to Amend which complies

with Local Rule 15.1 within thirty (30) days of the date this Order is issued or the Court

will proceed with Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) as the operative pleading.

DATED: February 13, 2015

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 14cv1142 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-01142-WQH-MSB Document 30 Filed 02/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4