Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00234/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00234-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

FERNIE GARZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAYTHEL FISHER, JR., Warden, DOE CHIEF 

MEDICAL EXECUTIVE, DOE MENTAL 

HEALTH CLINICIAN, DOE INMATE 

CLASSIFICATION EMPLOYEE, DOE 

CORRECTIONAL SEARGEANT, DOE 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, and DOES 6 

through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-00234-DAD-SKO

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO AMEND

(Doc. No. 25)

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding with the assistance of counsel, brings this suit 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations arising out of events taking 

place at Valley State Prison. (Doc. 1.) During the course of discovery, Plaintiff ascertained the 

names of the correctional officers and medical personnel who Plaintiff alleges were involved in 

the underlying incident. On November 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint 

to add these individuals as Defendants and dismiss existing Defendant Warden Raythel Fisher, Jr. 

For the reason set forth below, Plaintiff's motion to amend is GRANTED.

Case 1:15-cv-00234-DAD-SKO Document 29 Filed 12/29/15 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

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a prisoner at Valley State Prison, alleges he was housed with an inmate, Tourdot, 

who was known by Defendants to be unpredictable, violent, and a threat to the safety of inmates 

and staff. Despite this knowledge, Plaintiff alleges Defendants negligently assigned Tourdot to 

Plaintiff's housing unit and shared a bunk with Plaintiff. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 27-28.) On January 2, 2014, 

Tourdot attacked Plaintiff without provocation and bit Plaintiff's nose, which forced the removal 

of a large part of Plaintiff's nose and caused serious disfigurement. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 28-29.)

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's ("CDCR") medical staff treated 

Plaintiff for the wound, but when Plaintiff requested reconstructive surgery, his request was 

denied as unnecessary. (Doc. 1, ¶ 31.) Plaintiff alleges DOE Defendant Chief Medical Executive 

("CME") made the decision to deny surgery. When Plaintiff hired an attorney, the DOE CME 

reversed the decision to deny surgery and arranged for Plaintiff to undergo reconstructive surgery. 

(Doc. 1, ¶ 33.) The facial reconstructive process required more than one surgery, but the DOE 

CME initially refused to allow a follow-up surgery; after "further pressure was applied," the CME 

agreed to allow the surgery. (Doc. 1, ¶ 33.) Nonetheless, the initial refusal for the follow-up 

surgery resulted in numerous delays amounting to nine months. Plaintiff contends the initial 

denials and delays caused him to suffer needlessly both physically and emotionally. (Doc. 1, ¶ 

33.) 

On February 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant Raythel Fisher, Jr., the 

Warden at Valley State Prison, and several DOE Defendants. Plaintiff's first cause of action sets 

forth claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violation of Plaintiff's Eighth and Fourteenth 

Amendment rights due to Defendants' deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's personal health and 

safety in housing him with Tourdot, and due to Defendants initially refusing and delaying his 

reconstructive facial surgeries. (Doc. 1, ¶ 54.) Plaintiff's second cause of action is against all 

Defendants for general negligence for Defendants' failure to use reasonable care in assigning 

Tourdot to be housed with Plaintiff. Plaintiff's third cause of action is for medical negligence 

against the DOE CME for failure to provide the reasonable and necessary treatment that Plaintiff 

Case 1:15-cv-00234-DAD-SKO Document 29 Filed 12/29/15 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

required by refusing to provide reconstructive surgery in a timely manner and by subsequently 

refusing to consent to the required follow-up treatment for many months. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 71-81.)

During discovery, Plaintiff obtained the identities of several of the DOE Defendants named 

in the original complaint; on November 23, 2015, Plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to 

identify the DOE Defendants. (Doc. 25.) No opposition to Plaintiff's motion to amend was filed.

III. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that a party may amend its pleading only by 

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

justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)-(2). The Ninth Circuit has instructed that the policy 

favoring amendments "is to be applied with extreme liberality." Morongo Band of Mission 

Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The factors commonly considered to determine the propriety of a motion for leave to 

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

amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The Ninth Circuit has held that it is the 

consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight. Eminence 

Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). Absent prejudice, or a strong 

showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, a presumption in favor of granting leave to 

amend exists under Rule 15(a). Id. 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). Finally, "liberality in 

granting leave to amend is not dependent on whether the amendment will add causes of action or 

parties." DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). Contra Union Pac. 

R.R. Co. v. Nev. Power Co., 950 F.2d 1429, 1432 (9th Cir. 1991) ("Amendments seeking to add 

claims are to be granted more freely than amendments adding parties.").

Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to add Defendants recently identified in discovery: 

J. Alvara, Correctional Lieutenant; D. Roberts, Captain; E. Alva, Correctional Counselor; S. 

Torres, Correctional Counselor, N. Barksdale, MSW, ACSW, P. Virk, M.D., Chief Medical 

Executive; N. Malakkla, M.D., Chief Physician and Surgeon, W. Zhang, M.D., K. Toor, M.D., 

and Ricki Barnett, M.D., Director for Utilization Management.

Case 1:15-cv-00234-DAD-SKO Document 29 Filed 12/29/15 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

Plaintiff's proposed First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges a Section 1983 claim 

against Defendants J. Alvara, D. Roberts, E. Alva, S. Torres, and N. Barksdale (the "Custodial 

Defendants") for assigning Tourdot to housing with Plaintiff because the Custodial Defendants

knew of and disregarded the safety risk Tourdot posed. (Doc. 25-2.) Plaintiff also alleges Section 

1983 claims against P. Virk, M.D., N. Malakkla, M.D., W. Zhang, M.D., K. Toor, M.D., and Ricki 

Barnett, M.D., as the health care providers who failed to provide reasonable and necessary 

reconstructive surgery that would preserve Plaintiff's nasal passages. 

The proposed FAC also sets forth a general negligence claim against the Custodial 

Defendants for failure to properly screen Tourdot from a housing assignment with Plaintiff. 

Finally, Plaintiff alleges a medical negligence claim against Defendants Virk, Malakkla, Zhang, 

Toor, and Barnett for failure to use reasonable care in providing medical care following Plaintiff's

injuries. 

The Defendants Plaintiff seeks to name were identified as DOE Defendants in the original 

complaint, and thus the notice provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) appear to be 

satisfied. The allegations and the claims contained in the proposed FAC are the same as those in 

the original complaint, except that the DOE Defendants have been identified and their conduct has 

been more specifically alleged. As Plaintiff maintains, the factual allegations in the proposed 

FAC do not change or add to the allegations except as to what is necessary to account for each 

newly identified Defendant's role in the case. 

Plaintiff's motion is timely; under the existing schedule, discovery does not close until 

April 2016. (Doc. 24.) The Court perceives no undue delay1or bad faith on the part of Plaintiff in 

seeking amendment, and on the face of the proposed First Amended Complaint, none of the claims 

appear futile. 

 

1 The time necessary for service of the FAC and for Defendants to respond to the FAC may require a schedule 

modification, but it is premature to address that matter now.

Case 1:15-cv-00234-DAD-SKO Document 29 Filed 12/29/15 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

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint is GRANTED, and the hearing set for 

December 23, 2015, is VACATED;

2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that comports to the proposed First 

Amended Complaint attached as an exhibit to his motion within three 

(3) days from the date of this order; 

3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to issue 10 USM-285 forms to Plaintiff; and

4. By no later than January 6, 2015, Plaintiff is ordered to submit completed USM285 forms and summonses, and upon receipt of these forms, the U.S. Marshal's 

Office will be directed to serve Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 28, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00234-DAD-SKO Document 29 Filed 12/29/15 Page 5 of 5