Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00469/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00469-14/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RONALD DEAN YANDELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DONALD WASHINGTON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-00469 DAD AC 

ORDER 

 

 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to amend his 

complaint along with a proposed third amended complaint. ECF Nos. 53-54. Defendants have 

filed an opposition to the motion to amend. ECF No. 57. For the reasons outlined below, the 

court will grant plaintiff’s motion to amend. By separate order, the court will screen plaintiff’s 

third amended complaint. 

I. Procedural History 

In the court’s screening order of the second amended complaint, plaintiff was denied 

further leave to amend because there were no additional facts he could allege that would state 

claims upon which relief could be granted. ECF No. 15 at 11. Thus, this case is presently 

proceeding only on claim five against defendant Toliver for a First Amendment violation of the 

free exercise clause. ECF No. 56 (order adopting Findings and Recommendations of November 

15, 2023). 

Case 2:21-cv-00469-DAD-AC Document 58 Filed 04/01/24 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 

2 

II. Motion to Amend 

Instead of relying on additional facts to support his motion to amend, plaintiff cites to the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling in his co-defendant’s § 1983 case challenging this court’s 

dismissal of his amended complaint for failing to state a claim.1 ECF No. 53 at 1; see also Brady 

v. Jones, No. 2:21-cv-00489-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.) at ECF No. 32 (Memorandum Opinion). The 

Ninth Circuit concluded that Brady’s amended complaint sufficiently alleged a due process 

violation based on his placement in the Total Separation Unit (“TSU”) and First and Sixth 

Amendment violations based on the denial of confidential visits with counsel in his criminal case. 

See Brady, at ECF No. 32. As a result, Brady’s complaint was remanded to this court and service 

of the first amended complaint was ordered. See Brady, at ECF No. at 40. In light of the Ninth 

Circuit remand order in Brady, plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to add the challenges to his 

placement in the TSU as well as his claim related to the lack of confidential legal visits while 

confined at the Sacramento County Main Jail. ECF No. 53 at 2. 

In opposition to the motion to amend, defendant relies exclusively on this court’s prior 

screening orders which concluded that the TSU and non-confidential attorney-client visits were 

insufficiently pled to state a claim. ECF No. 57 at 2. The opposition does not address the Ninth 

Circuit remand order in the co-defendant’s § 1983 case. 

III. Legal Standards 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), leave to amend a complaint after a 

responsive pleading has been filed is only permitted with the opposing party’s consent or by leave 

of court. Leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Foman v. Davis, 

371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “This 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 Circuit 1987). “Liberality in granting a plaintiff leave to amend is subject 

to the qualification that the amendment not cause undue prejudice to the defendant, is not sought 

1

 The court takes judicial notice of the docket in Brady v. Jones, No. 2:21-cv-00489-TLN-AC 

(E.D. Cal.). See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); see also Diamon v. Pitchess, 411 F.2d 565, 566 (9th Cir. 

1969) (stating that a court may take judicial notice of its own records). 

Case 2:21-cv-00469-DAD-AC Document 58 Filed 04/01/24 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 

3 

in bad faith, and is not futile. Additionally, the district court may consider the factor of undue 

delay.” Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 (9th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). Based on 

Rule 15’s standard favoring amendment, the nonmoving party has the burden of demonstrating 

why leave to amend should not be granted. Senza-Gel Corp. v. Seiffhart, 803 F.2d 661, 666 (Fed. 

Cir. 1986). 

IV. Analysis 

In this case, the court finds that the interests of justice dictate that plaintiff be granted 

leave to amend in light of the Ninth Circuit remand order in Brady. By failing to address this 

aspect of the motion to amend, defendant has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that 

leave to amend should be denied. See Senza-Gel, 803 F.2d at 666. Additionally, defendant does 

not even argue that he would be prejudiced if leave to amend is granted. The additional factor of 

futility is not present in the instant case for the reasons articulated in the Ninth Circuit’s remand 

order in Brady. Nor does the record suggest any bad faith on the part of plaintiff. Granting leave 

to amend at this juncture will not cause undue delay because no discovery and scheduling order 

has yet issued in this case. For all these reasons, plaintiff’s motion to amend is granted. The 

court will screen plaintiff’s third amended complaint by separate order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 53) 

is granted based on the interests of justice. 

DATED: April 1, 2024 

Case 2:21-cv-00469-DAD-AC Document 58 Filed 04/01/24 Page 3 of 3