Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00340/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00340-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY BEARDEN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KEVIN SUTO, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

_

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-0340 MMC (PR)

ORDER DENYING

MOTION TO AMEND

(Docket No. 12)

Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) proceeding pro se, filed

the above-titled civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants, all

SVSP employees, verbally harassed him. By order filed May 18, 2005, the Court dismissed

the complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. See generally Freeman v.

Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding allegations of verbal harassment and

abuse fail to state a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Leave to amend was not

granted because the factual allegations of verbal harassment, no matter how amended, would

not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,

1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). On May 19, 2005, judgment of dismissal was entered. 

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint, filed June 1, 2005,

by which plaintiff seeks to allege new and distinct claims of inadequate medical care. 

Plaintiff may raise these medical claims in a new complaint filed in a new action; he will

not, however, be given leave to reopen this closed action and amend his verbal harassment

Case 3:05-cv-00340-MMC Document 13 Filed 06/06/05 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

claims to set forth a new case.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is DENIED. 

This order terminates Docket No. 12.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 6, 2005

/s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00340-MMC Document 13 Filed 06/06/05 Page 2 of 2