Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-00063/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-00063-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

 See Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Summary Judgment, 2

November 9, 2006 for a detailed review of the factual and procedural background of this action.

Case No. C 02-00063 JF 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 5/8/07**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARC CHARLES DAWSON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

T. BORGES,

 Defendant.

Case Number C 02-00063 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 1

LEAVE TO FILE SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT

[re: docket no. 70]

I. BACKGROUND

This action arises from an alleged use of excessive force against Plaintiff Marc Charles

Dawson while Plaintiff was in the custody of the California Bureau of Prisons. On November 9, 2

2006, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

On March 30, 2007, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a second amended complaint (“the SAC”). 

Plaintiff seeks to add a claim for declaratory relief and to name as an additional defendant the

Case 5:02-cv-00063-JF Document 82 Filed 05/08/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Case No. C 02-00063 JF 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

(JFLC1)

warden of Pelican State Bay Prison (“the Warden”). Defendant Borges opposes the motion. The

Court heard oral argument on May 7, 2007. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

 A request for leave to amend is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which

provides that “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” In deciding whether to grant

leave to amend, the Court will consider several factors, including: (1) undue delay by the party

seeking the amendment; (2) prejudice to the opposing party; (3) bad faith; (4) futility of

amendment; and (5) whether the party previously has amended its pleadings. Bonin v. Calderon,

59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). 

III. DISCUSSION

1. Delay

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s motion is the result of and will cause undue delay. 

Defendant points to the five years that have passed since the filing of the original complaint and

the first amended complaint, the four years that have passed since Defendant filed his first

motion for summary judgment, the almost two years since Plaintiff was appointed his current

counsel, and the nearly seven months since Defendant filed his second motion for summary

judgment. Defendant also stresses that discovery closed before the end of 2006 and asserts that

the parties were anticipating setting a trial date for some time in the summer of 2007 at the case

management conference scheduled for May 4, 2007.

Counsel for Plaintiff states the following: He was appointed on April 28, 2006. At that

time, he was advised that Defendant anticipated bringing a second motion for summary

judgment. After that motion was denied on November 9, 2006, counsel for Plaintiff prepared for

a judicial settlement conference on March 9, 2007. Counsel for Plaintiff states that after that

effort at settlement failed, he reviewed Plaintiff’s pro se complaint and conducted relevant

research to ensure that the complaint identified the precise relief desired by Plaintiff. In so doing,

he realized that to obtain full relief, it would be necessary to expunge the disciplinary charges

against Plaintiff associated with the underlying incident from Plaintiff’s prison record. That led

Case 5:02-cv-00063-JF Document 82 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Case No. C 02-00063 JF 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

(JFLC1)

him to the conclusion that a declaratory relief claim against the Warden should be added. He

contacted opposing counsel to see if Defendant would stipulate to such amendment and reserved

the first available hearing date. When counsel for Defendant did not respond, counsel for

Plaintiff filed the instant motion.

It is clear that Plaintiff could have sought to amend his complaint earlier because the

amendment at issue here did not depend upon the emergence of new facts. However, no trial

date had been scheduled prior to this order, and there is no evidence of intentional or strategic

delay on the part of Plaintiff’s counsel. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is not

guilty of undue delay . 

2. Prejudice

Defendant argues that he will be prejudiced because discovery will need to be reopened

with respect to Plaintiff’s exhaustion of administrative remedies. However, the Warden likely

would not have to perform any discovery himself, since the prison has full records of any internal

proceedings brought by Plaintiff. Even if such discovery is necessary, the resulting prejudice will

be minimal. Any litigation between Plaintiff and the Warden regarding the sufficiency of the

claim against the Warden will not affect the Court’s partial grant of summary judgment to

Defendant. Although discovery and subsequent motion practice will delay trial briefly, the Court

concludes that any additional discovery is likely to be quite limited in scope. 

3. Previous Amendment

Defendant argues that the Court should be particularly reluctant to grant the instant

motion because the complaint has already been amended once. However, the complaint was

amended within a month of its initial filing, and it has not been amended since counsel was

appointed. Consequently, the Court gives little weight to the fact that the complaint has been

amended previously.

4. Local Rules

Defendant also complains that counsel for Plaintiff failed to meet and confer prior to

filing the motion as required by the Court’s local rules. However, while the Court always

encourages cooperation between counsel, the local rules do not impose a meet and confer

Case 5:02-cv-00063-JF Document 82 Filed 05/08/07 Page 3 of 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

4

Case No. C 02-00063 JF 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

(JFLC1)

requirement for motions for leave to amend.

5. Conclusion and Schedule

Having weighed the factors discussed above, the Court concludes that Plaintiff should be

permitted to file the proposed second amended complaint. As discussed at the hearing, the Court

adopts the following schedule:

September 14, 2007 Hearing of anticipated second motion for summary

judgment 

November 16, 2007 Pretrial conference

November 26, 2007 Jury trial begins (expected duration, 4 days) 

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for leave to

file a second amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file the second amended

complaint within seven days of this order. Discovery shall be reopened solely as to the issue of

exhaustion.

DATED: May 8, 2007

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:02-cv-00063-JF Document 82 Filed 05/08/07 Page 4 of 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

5

Case No. C 02-00063 JF 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Amber Smith Crothall asc@millermorton.com, jmh@millermorton.com 

David Irwin Kornbluh dkornbluh@millermorton.com, lac@millermorton.com 

Jesse Jeremy Maddox , NA jmaddox@lozanosmith.com, tcreamier@lozanosmith.com;

dstevens@lozanosmith.com 

Gregory Alan Wedner gwedner@lozanosmith.com, ssimmons@lozanosmith.com;

mbilleci@lozanosmith.com; lreynolds@lozanosmith.com;

ploftis@lozanosmith.com; dstevens@lozanosmith.com;

JMaddox@lozanosmith.com 

Case 5:02-cv-00063-JF Document 82 Filed 05/08/07 Page 5 of 5