Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01236/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01236-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL J. BOOTH, CDCR #G-27872,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEORGE NEOTTI, Warden; JOHN DOE #1,

Correctional Officer; JOHN DOE #2, 2nd

Watch Correctional Sergeant, Fac. 2, Bldg. 8

on June 22, 2009; JOHN DOE #3, 2nd Watch

Correctional Sergeant, Fac. 2, Bldg. 8 on June

26, 2009; R. BOLDING, Correctional

Officer; T. ARMSTEAD, Correctional

Officer,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 10-CV-1236 WQH (NLS)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO GRANT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

AMEND COMPLAINT

[Doc. No. 35.]

On June 7, 2010, Michael J. Booth (“Plaintiff”), then a prisoner confined in the California

Rehabilitation Center in Norco, California, filed this civil rights action pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42

U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. No. 1.] On October 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 

[Doc. No. 15.] Plaintiff contends, that while incarcerated in Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility

(“RJD”), Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment

by placing Plaintiff, an openly gay man, in a cell with an inmate known to commit acts of violence against

openly gay inmates. See FAC ¶¶ 34-66. Plaintiff also raises claims of simple negligence and intentional

infliction of emotional distress. See FAC ¶¶ 67-103. 

Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend his FAC to include information recently obtained through

1 10-cv-1236 WQH NLS

Case 3:10-cv-01236-WQH-NLS Document 44 Filed 03/26/12 Page 1 of 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

document production and deposition testimony. (Motion to Amend Complaint (“Mot.”) at 1.) Specifically,

Plaintiff seeks to name proper defendants not previously named in the FAC, dismiss the alleged intentional

infliction of emotional distress claims, and add the claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress against

all defendants. (Id.) Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion. (Mot. at 2); Dalton Decl. ¶ 2. After 

reviewing the applicable legal standards, the Court RECOMMENDS granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave

to Amend Complaint.

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

Leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); see also

DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). “Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: bad

faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has

previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks to amend his FAC following information obtained from the recent deposition of

Defendant George Neotti, the warden of RJD at the time of the incidents giving rise to this litigation. (Mot.

at 4, 6.) Mr. Neotti’s deposition was originally scheduled for October 31, 2011, but, because of Mr. Neotti’s

unavailability, did not occur until February 8, 2012. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff claims Mr. Neotti provided key

information in his deposition, including names of previously unidentified personnel responsible for the

alleged Eighth Amendment violations. (Id. at 4.) 

Defendants do not oppose the motion, and will suffer little prejudice should Plaintiff be permitted

to amend his FAC. Indeed, the case is in its early stages, and ample time exists for Defendants to counter

any new claims. Further, Defendants were likely already aware of the information Mr. Neotti shared in the

deposition.

Additionally, the court does not find bad faith, undue delay, or futility of amendment here. The only

factor weighing against Plaintiff is that he has already previously amended his complaint; yet, this alone

does not tip the scales in favor of denying Plaintiff’s motion.

The Court finds that Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend, as justice so requires.

///

2 10-cv-1236 WQH NLS

Case 3:10-cv-01236-WQH-NLS Document 44 Filed 03/26/12 Page 2 of 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

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the preceding discussion, this Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave

to Amend Complaint [Doc. No. 35] be GRANTED.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned to this

case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a

copy on all parties on or before April 9, 2012. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report

and Recommendation.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served on or before April 16,

2012.

Failure to file objections within the specified time may affect the scope of review on appeal. Baxter

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 26, 2012

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

3 10-cv-1236 WQH NLS

Case 3:10-cv-01236-WQH-NLS Document 44 Filed 03/26/12 Page 3 of 3