Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01904/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01904-10/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

JODEE GARRETT, SR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1904 RRB EFB P

vs.

JAMES WALKER, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the September 14, 2006, first amended complaint in

which plaintiff claims the following: (1) defendants Rustad and Naramore violated the Eighth

Amendment by requiring that he work among general population prisoners even though they

knew that plaintiff was in protective custody, resulting in prisoners attacking plaintiff; (2) on

December 7, 2005, plaintiff was attacked by a general population prisoner, and during the attack

defendants Saldonna and Cortes failed adequately to protect plaintiff; (3) defendants Walker,

Minor, Garcia, Mareno, Vance and Neis knew that there was in adequate security for protective

custody prisoners safely to work in the general population, but allowed plaintiff to be placed in a

job requiring he come into contact with general population prisoners. On August 9, 2007,

plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. For the reasons explained

Case 2:06-cv-01904-JAM-EFB Document 49 Filed 11/09/07 Page 1 of 2
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

below, the court recommends that plaintiff’s motion be denied.

Plaintiff contends that he should be granted leave to file a second amended complaint “to

conform to the evidence,” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b). Motion at 2. 

Defendants contend that amendment pursuant to Rule 15(b) is unnecessary and inappropriate. 

Rule 15(b) provides, in relevant part:

When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of

the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the

pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them

to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of

any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure so to amend does not affect

the result of the trial of these issues.

The purpose of this rule is “to align the pleadings to conform to the issues actually tried.” Cole

v. Layrite Products Co., 439 F.2d 958, 961 (9th Cir. 1971). Thus, it applies after trial on the

merits. As of yet there has been no trial in this action. Rather, defendants’ motion for summary

judgment is pending. Therefore, it is premature to apply Rule 15(b).

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s August 9, 2007, Rule 15(b)

motion to amend the complaint be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: November 8, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01904-JAM-EFB Document 49 Filed 11/09/07 Page 2 of 2