Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05820/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05820-2/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT KEITH BELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEN LEE, Deputy; et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 13-5820 SI (pr)

ORDER 

Vincent Keith Bell, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this pro se civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining of conditions of confinement at the jail. The

court found that the amended complaint (Docket # 5) stated cognizable § 1983 claims against

several defendants for excessive force, retaliation and denial of due process in disciplinary

proceedings. Service of process was ordered on seven members of the San Francisco Sheriff's

Department, who have now appeared in this action. 

Bell has filed a "motion to amend adding new defendant and date change." Docket # 10.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend should be freely given when

justice so requires but the court cannot make that determination without seeing the proposed new

pleading. See Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d 360, 374 (3d Cir. 2000) ("Obviously, without this draft

complaint, the District Court cannot evaluate the merits of a plaintiff's request . . . [T]he court

had nothing upon which to exercise its discretion.") The motion to amend is DENIED because

Bell did not attach the proposed second amended complaint. Docket # 10. It would not be in

the interest of justice to construe the motion to amend to actually be the second amended

complaint because there are many pleading problems with it and further amendment would be

necessary. As the defendants point out in their opposition to the motion, many of Bell's

Case 3:13-cv-05820-SI Document 19 Filed 05/08/15 Page 1 of 2
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

2

allegations lack sufficient detail to allow defendants or the court to understand what claims Bell

is making against the defendants. See Docket # 17 at 2. 

In his motion to amend, Bell indicated that he wanted to correct the date of the excessive

force incident, which is appropriate. Bell also indicated that he wanted to add one or more new

defendants, which may be permissible, depending on the claims against those defendants. For

each new defendant he wants to add, Bell must allege what that defendant did or failed to do that

caused a denial of plaintiff' constitutional rights. Bell also must state the dates on which any

constitutional violation allegedly occurred to give the defendants fair notice of the claims against

them. Bell must file his second amended complaint no later than June 12, 2015, or the action

will proceed without the new defendant(s). 

Plaintiff filed a "motion for denial of extension of time," in which he argues that the

deadline for defendants to file their dispositive motion should not be extended. Plaintiff's motion

is DENIED. Docket # 18. The court already granted the requested extension of time in the order

filed April 9, 2015 and even more time is now necessary because of Bell's own desire to add

claims against one or more new defendants. It is appropriate to further extend the deadline for

dispositive motions so that all defendants can be served and potentially file a motion on the same

schedule. Accordingly, the court now sets the following new briefing schedule: Defendants'

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion must be filed and served no later than

August 1, 2015. Plaintiff's opposition to the motion for summary judgment or other dispositive

motion must be filed and served on defense counsel no later than August 28, 2015. Defendants'

reply brief, if any, must be filed and served no later than September 11, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2015 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05820-SI Document 19 Filed 05/08/15 Page 2 of 2