Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00299/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00299-9/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

DON L. JEFFERSON, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0299 RRB DAD P

vs.

DEPUTY ROWE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has filed a

motion for leave to amend his complaint together with a proposed second amended complaint.

Defendants have filed an opposition to the motion. 

In his motion, plaintiff explains that he filed his original complaint listing John

Does as defendants and that he has since determined the identity of one of the John Does. 

Accordingly, plaintiff requests leave to amend his complaint for a second time to reflect that, in

addition to the presently-named defendants, Sergeant Millican violated his Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights. 

In opposition, defendants contend that the operative pleading in this case,

plaintiff’s December 6, 2006 first amended complaint, names no John Doe defendants. In

addition, defendants note that they filed an answer to plaintiff’s first amended complaint on

Case 2:06-cv-00299-JAM-DAD Document 45 Filed 03/07/08 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

2

March 20, 2007, and discovery has been ongoing since the court issued its discovery order on

April 4, 2007. Defendants acknowledge that courts have interpreted Rule 15 with “extreme

liberality,” but contend that the court should not grant leave to amend automatically. Defendants

argue that a trial court may deny a motion for leave to amend if permitting the amendment would

prejudice the opposing party, produce an undue delay in the litigation, or if the proposed

amendment would be futile due to lack of merit. Here, defendants contend that allowing the

plaintiff to file a second amended complaint would result in prejudice to the defendants in the

following three ways: (1) the burden of necessary additional discovery, (2) delay in the resolution

of this action, and (3) prejudice to the new defendant who may have no notice or knowledge of

the pending action. 

Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, once an answer has been

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

party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). A court should grant leave to amend freely when justice so

requires. Id. The Supreme Court has instructed lower courts to heed carefully the command of

Rule 15. See 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 new parties. DCD Programs v.

Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). Rather, as the Supreme Court has articulated:

In the absence of any apparent or declared reason – such as undue

delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,

repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously

allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of

allowing the amendment, futility of the amendment, etc. – the

leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.”

Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. See also Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 (9th Cir. 1999)

As defendants argue, and as the Ninth Circuit has recognized, amending a

complaint to add a new party presents an acute threat of prejudice to that new party. DCD

Programs, 833 F.2d at 187. However, where, as here, the case is still in the discovery stage and

the court has not yet issued a scheduling order, it cannot be said that the new defendant would be

Case 2:06-cv-00299-JAM-DAD Document 45 Filed 03/07/08 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

3

prejudiced by the delay in plaintiff’s filing of his second amended complaint. Moreover, there is

no evidence in this case that plaintiff has an improper motive or has engaged in undue delay or

dilatory conduct. Although the addition of a new party may result in some additional discovery

and may delay the final resolution of this action to some degree, plaintiff ought to be granted an

opportunity to test his claims on the merits. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. Accordingly, the court will

grant plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend and order the United States Marshal to serve the

second amended complaint filed January 9, 2008, on Sergeant Millican.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s January 9, 2008 motion for leave to amend is granted;

2. Service of the second amended complaint is appropriate for defendant

Millican. 

3. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form, one summons,

an instruction sheet, and a copy of the second amended complaint filed January 9, 2008.

4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit all of the following documents to the

court at the same time:

a. The completed, signed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for the defendant listed in number 2

above; and

d. Two copies of the endorsed complaint filed January 9, 2008. 

5. Plaintiff shall not attempt to effect service of the complaint on the defendant or

request a waiver of service of summons from the defendant. Upon receipt of the above-described

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00299-JAM-DAD Document 45 Filed 03/07/08 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

4

documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to serve the above-named defendant

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs.

DATED: March 6, 2008.

DAD:9

jeff0299.10mod

Case 2:06-cv-00299-JAM-DAD Document 45 Filed 03/07/08 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DON L. JEFFERSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0299 RRB DAD P

vs.

DEPUTY ROWE, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s

order filed :

 one completed summons form;

 one completed USM-285 form; and

 two true and exact copies of the amended complaint filed January 9, 2008.

DATED: .

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-00299-JAM-DAD Document 45 Filed 03/07/08 Page 5 of 5