Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01256/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01256-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

16-CV-1256-DMS(WVG) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHARLES RAY CATHY, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

S. McCAIN; M. McKENZIE; 

SERGEANT CASTRO; G. 

HERNANDEZ, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 16-CV-1256-DMS(WVG) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION RE: 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 Plaintiff Charles Ray Cathy, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights 

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court dismissed the action and granted 

Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed his First Amended 

Complaint and filed a subsequent motion requesting a correction to his First Amended 

Complaint. In light of the liberal pleading standards afforded to a pro se litigant, the Court 

RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion to correct his First Amended Complaint be 

construed as a Motion to Amend the First Amended Complaint and that his Motion so 

construed be GRANTED. 

Case 3:16-cv-01256-DMS-WVG Document 13 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 8
2 

16-CV-1256-DMS(WVG) 

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

I. PROCEDRUAL OVERVIEW 

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se filed his original civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 on May 25, 2016. (Doc. No. 1.) The Court dismissed the action sua sponte 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A on June 28, 2016, for failure to allege facts sufficient to 

state causes of action. (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 

8, 2016. (Doc. No. 10.) Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a correction to 

the First Amended Complaint on September 9, 2016. (Doc. No. 12.) Defendants have not 

appeared in the suit yet and, thus, have not opposed the motion. 

Plaintiff’s original complaint indicated that he is suing Defendants both in their 

individual and official capacities. Upon filing his First Amended Complaint, it appears 

that Plaintiff forgot to preserve that specification and now seeks to correct his First 

Amended Complaint for the purpose of clarifying his intention to sue Defendants in their 

individual and official capacities. 

II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges violations of his First, Eighth, and 

Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Doc. No. 8 at 3, 5.) Specifically, he contends that 

Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights when they allegedly “acted with 

deliberate indifference to the threat of serious harm or injury to Plaintiff by another prisoner 

while on duty as a correctional officer.” (Id. at 3.) 

Plaintiff, a fifty-year old man with a documented mobility disability, currently is 

incarcerated in Kern Valley State Prison. (Id. at 3A, Ex. A.) On November 11, 2015, while 

Plaintiff was still incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison, he alleges that Defendants McCain 

and McKenzie, correctional officers, arranged for Plaintiff’s transfer to a different cell 

block and refused to divulge who his new cellmate would be, in violation of the facility’s 

double-cell policy. (Id. at 3A.) Defendant Castro, the sergeant on duty at the time, also 

allegedly refused to identify Plaintiff’s new cellmate. (Id.) As Plaintiff prepared to move 

Case 3:16-cv-01256-DMS-WVG Document 13 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 8
3 

16-CV-1256-DMS(WVG) 

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

to the new cell block, another inmate indicated to Plaintiff that his new cellmate was a 

Blood gang member who was prepared to “bust [Plaintiff’s] head open” if Plaintiff moved, 

as Plaintiff belonged to the rival Crip gang. (Id. at 3B.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendants 

were aware that Plaintiff and the proposed cellmate were from rival gangs. (Id.) Plaintiff 

refused to move when Defendants came to collect him. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights when they failed to follow protocol 

requiring them to verify that rival gang members are not placed in the same cell, and 

thereby acted with deliberate indifference to the threat of serious harm to Plaintiff or 

another prisoner. (Id. at 3.) 

Plaintiff further claims that Defendants violated his First Amendment rights when 

they allegedly retaliated against him by withholding his personal property upon his release 

from administrative segregation, and attempted to intimidate him by threatening to place 

him in administrative segregation when he refused to move. (Id. at 4, 4A.) When Plaintiff 

refused to move, Defendant McCain allegedly tried to intimidate him into compliance by 

saying, “[t]he Sergeant wants to send you to ad-seg [administrative segregation].” (Id. at 

3B.) Because Plaintiff stalwartly refused to move, Defendants retained possession of his 

packed belongings, and he was sent to administrative segregation. (Id. at 3B, 4.) After 

spending approximately one day in administrative segregation, the Captain who went to 

see Plaintiff apparently determined that Plaintiff should not have been so detained. (Id. at 

4.) Upon his release from administrative segregation, Plaintiff learned that his belongings 

had been misplaced. (Id.) Plaintiff avows that his belongings were misplaced for 

approximately three months. (Id.) Ultimately, Plaintiff was not required to move into the 

new cell with the rival gang member. 

Finally, Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights 

when they allegedly fabricated the charges authorizing Plaintiff’s detention in 

Case 3:16-cv-01256-DMS-WVG Document 13 Filed 09/29/16 Page 3 of 8
4 

16-CV-1256-DMS(WVG) 

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

administrative segregation and failed to issue a “Rules Violation Report” justifying his 

detention. (Id. at 5.) He further asserts that the lock-up order is incomplete. (Id.) 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

A. Rule 15(a)(2) Motion to Amend 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that “a party may amend its 

complaint once as a matter of course within twenty-one days after serving it.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 15(a)(1). After that window expires, and in any other circumstance, a party may amend 

its complaint “with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 15(a)(2). Courts should “freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. The Supreme 

Court of the United States has asserted that lower courts must heed this mandate. Foman 

v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Here, Plaintiff already has filed a First Amended 

Complaint, so this analysis will proceed under Rule 15(a)(2). 

B. Standards Applicable to Pro Se Litigants in Civil Rights Actions 

 As a general principle, “‘leave to amend should be granted if it appears at all possible

that the plaintiff can correct the defect.’” Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 977 (9th 

Cir. 2013) (emphasis in original) (quoting Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 

2000) (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Giles v. Felker, No. 2:16-CV923, 2016 WL 2757220, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. May 12, 2016)) (order dismissing the complaint 

with leave to refile an amended complaint)). The purpose of Rule 15—facilitating 

decisions on the merits—is best served by liberally permitting pro se plaintiffs to correct 

deficiencies in their complaints unless such deficiencies clearly cannot be cured by 

amendment. See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 

2013) (affirming denial of motion to amend complaint from pro se prisoners, who claimed 

the facility had violated their right to religious freedom by refusing to hire a Wiccan 

chaplain, because the facility had hired full-time chaplains of other faiths and had a 

volunteer Wiccan chaplain, negating prisoners’ claims). Naming a defendant incorrectly 

Case 3:16-cv-01256-DMS-WVG Document 13 Filed 09/29/16 Page 4 of 8
5 

16-CV-1256-DMS(WVG) 

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 a complaint is an example of a deficiency easily cured by amendment. See Crowley, 

734 F.3d at 978; Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31. 

Further, “[t]he ‘rule favoring liberality in amendments to pleadings is particularly 

important to the pro se litigant. Presumably unskilled in the law, the pro se litigant is far 

more prone to make errors in pleading than the person who benefits from the representation 

of counsel.’” Crowley, 734 F.3d at 977-78 (quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 

(9th Cir. 1987) (superseded by statute as stated in Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 

(9th Cir. 2012)); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“‘[A] pro se 

complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal 

pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976))). 

Because pro se litigants often are unfamiliar with legal terminology, in some cases, district 

courts in the Ninth Circuit have been willing to construe documents that the litigants 

mischaracterize or submit using incorrect forms as having been properly named or 

submitted. See Cunningham v. Kramer, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, No. 15-CV-1362, 2016 WL 

1545303, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2016) (construing pro se litigant’s “first amended 

complaint” that contained objections to court’s screening order as a motion for 

reconsideration as opposed to an amended complaint). 

IV. DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting that a correction be made to his First Amended 

Complaint of September 9, 2016. Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the Court mark the 

boxes on his First Amended Complaint to reflect that Plaintiff is suing each of the four 

Defendants in his individual and official capacity. Based on the nature of the request, the 

Court construes Plaintiff’s motion to correct his First Amended Complaint as a Motion to 

Amend the First Amended Complaint. Because Defendants have not appeared in this suit 

yet, and therefore cannot provide written consent for Plaintiff to amend his complaint, this 

Case 3:16-cv-01256-DMS-WVG Document 13 Filed 09/29/16 Page 5 of 8
6 

16-CV-1256-DMS(WVG) 

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

analysis only considers whether this Court should grant Plaintiff leave to amend his First 

Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2). 

Typically, courts must give wide latitude to plaintiffs wishing to amend their 

complaints, although such latitude may be curbed in consideration of the following factors: 

(1) the opposing party would be unduly prejudiced if the plaintiff were permitted to amend 

the complaint; (2) the plaintiff is moving in bad faith; (3) the proposed amendment stems 

from undue delay; and (4) amending the complaint would be futile. See Cafasso, U.S. ex. 

rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011). The factors are 

not weighted equally. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 

1987). The Court’s determination should be made “with all inferences in favor of granting 

the motion.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). 

A. Undue Prejudice to Opposing Party 

If a plaintiff proposes a needlessly-long amended complaint, the district court has 

the discretion to deny the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint as unduly prejudicial 

to the opposing party. See Cafasso, 637 F.3d at 1058-59 (affirming district court’s denial 

of plaintiff’s motion to amend because proposed amended complaint “approach[ed] the 

magnitude of War and Peace” at more than 700 pages and would have been onerous, if not 

impossible, for opposing party to answer thoroughly). A motion to amend that is filed 

several days before the discovery cut-off, and that would necessitate additional discovery 

if granted, properly may be denied as causing undue delay in the litigation and being 

prejudicial to defendant. See Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 

2002). 

Here, Defendants have not yet appeared in this suit, and, consequently, have not 

opposed Plaintiff’s motion to amend his First Amended Complaint. Thus, it would be 

difficult to imagine a scenario in which permitting this amendment would prove prejudicial 

to Defendants. Further, the amendment to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint would 

Case 3:16-cv-01256-DMS-WVG Document 13 Filed 09/29/16 Page 6 of 8
7 

16-CV-1256-DMS(WVG) 

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

neither change the nature of Plaintiff’s allegations nor require additional discovery. The 

proposed amendment merely corrects an oversight Plaintiff committed when filing his First 

Amended Complaint. 

B. Moving in Bad Faith 

Moving to amend a complaint for the sole purpose of adding a non-diverse defendant 

that would destroy the court’s diversity jurisdiction constitutes bad faith. See Sorosky v. 

Burroughs Corp., 826 F.2d 794, 805 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming denial of motion to amend 

complaint to add a non-diverse defendant). Again, Plaintiff is not seeking leave to alter his 

complaint radically and is not attempting to divest this Court’s jurisdiction. Nothing 

suggests that Plaintiff is moving in bad faith. 

C. Undue Delay 

When facts are available to a plaintiff for a considerable amount of time before the 

plaintiff moves to amend the complaint to incorporate those facts, the motion may be 

denied in consequence of the plaintiff’s undue delay in bringing the motion. See Chodos 

v. W. Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, Plaintiff filed his motion to 

correct his First Amended Complaint within approximately one month of filing his First 

Amended Complaint and prior to Defendants’ first appearance in the suit and the setting of 

a pre-trial calendar. Consequently, Plaintiff has not delayed an unreasonable amount of 

time before seeking to correct his First Amended Complaint. 

D. Futility of Amendment 

Proposed amendments are considered futile when they are “‘either duplicative of 

existing claims or patently frivolous.’” Murray v. Schriro, 745 F.3d 984, 1015 (9th Cir. 

2014) (quoting Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 846 (9th Cir. 1995)). An amendment is 

also futile if the content of the amended complaint still petitions the court to order 

defendants to violate the Constitution. See Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125, 1139 (9th Cir. 

2015) (affirming denial of Aryan Christian Odinist prisoner’s motion to amend because 

Case 3:16-cv-01256-DMS-WVG Document 13 Filed 09/29/16 Page 7 of 8
8 

16-CV-1256-DMS(WVG) 

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

amended complaint still would seek a court order exempting him from sharing a cell with 

a man of another race and would expose prison officials to liability under the Equal 

Protection Clause). Finally, permitting Plaintiff to amend his complaint would not prove 

futile because he is not asserting duplicative claims and the correction is not patently 

frivolous, as it clarifies the capacities in which Defendants are being sued. 

In light of Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant, and the liberal pleading standards, 

the Court recommends that Plaintiff be granted leave to amend. 

V. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion to 

correct his First Amended Complaint be construed as a Motion to Amend his First 

Amended Complaint and that the motion be GRANTED. This Report and 

Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this 

case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 72(b). 

 IT IS ORDERED that no later than October 7, 2016, any party to this action may 

file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document shall 

be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the 

Court and served on all parties no later than October 14, 2016. The parties are advised 

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those 

objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 29, 2016 

Case 3:16-cv-01256-DMS-WVG Document 13 Filed 09/29/16 Page 8 of 8