Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03496/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03496-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYNE JEROME ROBERTSON,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

OFFICER R. CUSACK,

Defendant. /

No. C 03-3496 MEJ

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Wayne Jerome Robertson (“Plaintiff”), an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a

pro se complaint against correctional officer Rolf Cusack ("Officer Cusack") for violation of 42

U.S.C. § 1983, pertaining to physical injuries he claims to have sustained after allegedly being

attacked by two inmates on January 12, 2003. On February 3, 2006, Plaintiff brought a Motion for

Leave to File a First Amended Complaint ("Motion"). 

II. BACKGROUND

 On January 12, 2003, Plaintiff was allegedly attacked by two inmates while walking from his

assigned cell to the prison medical clinic to receive medication. See Motion at 3 and Declaration of

Esther L. Klisura in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

("Declaration"), Exhibit A at 1-2. At the time of the attack, Officer Cusack was working the control

Case 3:03-cv-03496-MEJ Document 55 Filed 04/04/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Officer Cusack does not oppose Plaintiff's new negligence causes of action; therefore, the Court need only

address whether Plaintiff should be permitted to add defendant Warden McGrath. 

2

booth of Plaintiff’s housing unit. First Amended Complaint for Damages ("Proposed Complaint") at

¶ 8. During this time, the prison was on lock-down status and under modified program (id.), which

meant that only one prisoner was allowed to be out of their cell at a time and inmates visiting the

medical clinic or psychiatric services were to be escorted in restraints. Declaration, Exhibit A at 7.

Plaintiff was let out of his cell by Officer Cusack without restraints or an escort and on his

way to the medical clinic allegedly noticed two inmates standing in front of their cell door, which

was open. Declaration, Exhibit A at 1-2. Plaintiff states he heard one of the inmates say “get him”

and alleges the two inmates attacked him, one stabbing him four times with a homemade instrument

(in the back and neck) and the other hitting his head and upper body with a closed fist. Id. 

On July 28, 2003, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the injuries he

claims to have sustained during the January 12, 2003 incident, asserting a single cause of action and

naming one defendant, Officer Cusack. Declaration at ¶ 2. On December 7, 2005, the Honorable

Saundra Brown Armstrong appointed counsel for Plaintiff and at the same time, ordered a four-week

stay of the action, which was lifted January 4, 2006. Declaration at ¶ 3. 

On January 24, 2006, the parties voluntarily consented to magistrate jurisdiction and the case

was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James. 

On February 2, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, as

well as the Declaration of Esther L. Klisura in support thereof. Officer Cusack filed an Opposition

on February 16, 2006, and Plaintiff filed a Reply on March 2, 2006. 

III. DISCUSSION

 Plaintiff seeks to add causes of action for negligence and negligence per se, and one

additional defendant, Joseph McGrath, the warden at Pelican Bay State Prison at the time of the

incident.1

 Plaintiff asserts that his proposed amended complaint relates back to the original

complaint and that he has acted diligently to file this motion for leave as soon as was practicable. In

addition, Plaintiff argues there is no bad faith or dilatory motive in seeking to file the amended

Case 3:03-cv-03496-MEJ Document 55 Filed 04/04/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

complaint and Officer Cusack will not be unduly prejudiced by it. 

In response, Officer Cusack argues that Plaintiff's amended complaint is futile as to the new

defendant, Warden McGrath, since Plaintiff never exhausted administrative remedies as to Warden

McGrath. In addition, Officer Cusack argues that this Court should grant his motion for summary

judgment, which he states is pending and has gone unopposed since the date it was filed on July 18,

2005. 

In his Reply, Plaintiff asserts that leave to amend will not be futile due to non-exhaustion of

administrative remedies since a plaintiff's exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a pleading

requirement. Plaintiff argues that non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is a defense that a

defendant has the burden of raising and proving and, here, Officer Cusack has not met the burden. 

In addition, Plaintiff asserts that there is no pending motion for summary judgment since Judge

Armstrong denied Officer Cusack's motion for summary judgment without prejudice on October, 25,

2005. Plaintiff further provides that Officer Cusack has not yet renewed the motion and no

opposition is due; therefore, no motion is currently pending. 

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that once a responsive pleading has been

filed, a party may amend his/her pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse

party and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. The Ninth Circuit has held that Rule

15's policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with “extreme liberality.” DCD

Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting U.S. v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977,

979 (9th Cir. 1981)). That is, leave to amend should be freely given unless the court finds undue

delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, undue prejudice to the opposing party,

or futility of the amendment. DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 186; see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.

178, 182 (1962). Any determination regarding a request for leave to amend should be guided by the

underlying purpose of Rule 15 - to facilitate a decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or

technicalities. Webb, 655 F.2d at 979. 

Pleading requirements are especially liberal as to pro se pleadings. Haines v. Kerner, 404

Case 3:03-cv-03496-MEJ Document 55 Filed 04/04/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (pleadings filed by pro se litigants are held to less rigid standards than those

drafted by attorneys). In such cases, the duty to construe the pleadings liberally is particularly

applicable. Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001). 

B. Application to Case at Bar

Here, Officer Cusack directs the Court's attention to Plaintiff's addition of Warden McGrath

and argues that Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies as to Warden McGrath; thus,

leave to amend would be futile. Defendant Cusack's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend

("Opposition") at 1. If an amendment to a complaint will not at all affect the outcome of a lawsuit,

leave to amend is futile and should be denied. Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass'n v. Klamath Med., 701

F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983). Leave to amend should also be denied as futile if it is clear to the

court that a plaintiff will not prevail on the merits of the amendment. Smith v. Commanding Officer,

Airforce Accounting and Fin. Ctr., 555 F.2d 234, 235 (9th Cir. 1977).

Here, the Court finds that adding Warden McGrath as a defendant could substantially affect

the outcome of the lawsuit. At the outset, the amendment would charge both Officer Cusack and

Warden McGrath with civil rights and negligence violations, thus affecting the case's outcome. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that leave to amend is not futile. Klamath-Lake, 701 F.2d at 1293. 

In addition, it is not clear that Plaintiff will not succeed on the merits of his claims against

Warden McGrath because the record does not conclusively show Plaintiff's non-exhaustion of

administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) imposes a requirement that no action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions under § 1983 until administrative remedies are exhausted. 

Although plaintiffs are required to exhaust administrative remedies, § 1997e(a) does not impose a

pleading requirement. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). Instead, § 1997e(a)

creates a defense, whereby defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of

exhaustion. Id. Because Warden McGrath is not yet a party, there has been no opportunity for him

to assert this defense. As such, the Court cannot conclusively determine at this time whether

Plaintiff will prevail on his claims against Warden McGrath. In light of Rule 15's liberal application

to pleadings filed by pro se litigants and the Court's finding that leave to amend would not be futile,

Case 3:03-cv-03496-MEJ Document 55 Filed 04/04/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

the Court finds that Plaintiff's motion should be granted. 

Officer Cusack also argues that this Court should grant his motion for summary judgment,

which he states is pending and has gone unopposed since the date it was filed on July 18, 2005. 

However, on October 25, 2005, Judge Armstrong denied Officer Cusack's motion for summary

judgment without prejudice to renewing it after an attorney was appointed to represent Plaintiff. 

Order Referring Case to Federal Pro Bono Project and Addressing Pending Motions, p. 3. As

Officer Cusack has not renewed the motion, there is no motion for summary judgment currently

pending. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court hearby GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to

File a First Amended Complaint. Within five (5) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file

his amended complaint. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading within 30 days from the date of

Plaintiff's filing. At that time, Warden McGrath shall also file his consent to or declination of

magistrate jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2006 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:03-cv-03496-MEJ Document 55 Filed 04/04/06 Page 5 of 5