Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00759/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00759-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS JOHN CARLSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. HANSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-00759-LJO-SKO PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT, DIRECTING 

CLERK’S OFFICE TO FILE THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND 

DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE 

RESPONSE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Docs. 43 and 44)

Plaintiff Thomas John Carlson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 30, 2010. This action is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed May 4, 2012, against Defendants 

Worth, Newton, Rodriquez, Vega, Monroy, Angulo, Madrid, and O=Brien (“Defendants”) for 

acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff=s medical needs, in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment of the United States Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Pursuant to the scheduling order, the deadline to amend the pleadings was August 12, 

2013. Plaintiff filed a timely motion to amend on May 28, 2013. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 

Defendants did not file a response and the motion has been submitted upon the record without oral 

argument. Local Rule 230(l).

“Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so 

requires.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) 

Case 1:10-cv-00759-LJO-SKO Document 52 Filed 11/06/13 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

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). Courts “need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) 

prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in the 

litigation; or (4) is futile.” AmerisourceBergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 951. However, the factor of 

“‘[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend,’” Owens v. 

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712-13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. 

Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 (9th Cir. 1999)), and absent prejudice or a strong showing of any of 

the remaining factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to 

amend, C. F. ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 985 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(citing Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003)) (quotation 

marks omitted), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1566 (2012).

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to amend was timely filed and he seeks to amend to add 

seven defendants who were previously identified as Doe defendants. Plaintiff also seeks leave to 

amend to add claims under state law for negligence and/or violation of Cal. Gov’t Code § 845.6.

The Court has reviewed the proposed third amended complaint and given the liberality of Rule 15, 

Plaintiff’s motion shall be granted.1 Crowley v. Bannister, __ F.3d __, __, No. 12-15804, 2013 

WL 5813178, at *__ (9th Cir. Oct. 30, 2013).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to file a third amended complaint, filed on May 28, 

2013, is GRANTED;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall file in the proposed third amended complaint; 

3. Defendants Worth, Newton, Rodriquez, Vega, Monroy, Angulo, Madrid, and 

O=Brien shall file a response to the third amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date 

of service of this order;2

 

1 To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to state a separate claim for denial of due process, that claim fails as a matter of 

law and it is dismissed, with prejudice. If a constitutional claim is covered by a specific constitutional provision, the 

claim must be analyzed under the standard appropriate to that specific provision, not under the rubric of substantive 

due process. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 843, 118 S.Ct. 1708 (1998) (quotation marks and citation 

omitted). In this instance, the Eighth Amendment specifically provides redress for the denial of adequate medical 

care.

2 Defendant Alavara was never served and he was dismissed from the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(m). While Defendants Howerton and Felton are still named as defendants in the third amended 

Case 1:10-cv-00759-LJO-SKO Document 52 Filed 11/06/13 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

4. The pretrial dispositive motion deadline set for December 23, 2013, is vacated and 

an amended scheduling order setting new discovery and pretrial dispositive motion deadlines will 

be issued in due course; and

5. By separate order, the United States Marshal will be directed to initiate service on 

Defendants J. L. Abraham, I. J. Alvarado, S. Chan, M. Garza, W. M. Ikeni, J. E. McCave, and I. 

G. Villa.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

 

complaint, Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against them were previously dismissed, with prejudice, and those 

claims are omitted from the third amended complaint

Case 1:10-cv-00759-LJO-SKO Document 52 Filed 11/06/13 Page 3 of 3