Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01778/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01778-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH STEWART, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-01778-PJH 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 43

Before the court is plaintiff Kenneth Stewart, III’s motion for leave to file a third 

amended complaint. The matter is fully briefed and suitable for decision without oral 

argument. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and 

the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby rules as follows.

This lawsuit arises out of plaintiff’s father’s, Kenneth E. Stewart, Jr.’s (the 

“decedent”), suicide committed while an inmate at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”). 

The court dismissed plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint because it was too threadbare 

and merely recited the elements of plaintiff’s claims. Dkt. 24. 

On November 29, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part defendant 

State of California’s (the “State”) motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 

(the “SAC”). Dkt. 41. Specifically, the court denied the State’s motion to dismiss 

plaintiff’s claim brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 

12132 & the Rehabilitation Act (the “RA”) and granted with leave to amend the State’s 

motion with respect to plaintiff’s Cal. Gov. Code § 845.6 claim. Id. The court found that 

plaintiff’s § 845.6 claims remained too conclusory to state a plausible claim for relief 

because, though plaintiff alleged a conversation took place between the decedent and an 

Case 4:18-cv-01778-PJH Document 46 Filed 01/02/19 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

SQSP guard, the SAC was devoid of factual allegations providing context to that 

conversation. Dkt. 41 at 1-2.

During the hearing on the State’s motion to dismiss the SAC, plaintiff requested 

leave to amend his complaint a third time to include allegations based on SQSP records 

plaintiff received on October 23, 2018. Accordingly, the court’s November 29, 2018 order 

directed plaintiff to file a motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (the “TAC”). 

With respect to plaintiff’s Cal. Gov. Code § 845.6 claim, the court stated that “any 

amendment to plaintiff’s § 845.6 cause of action must be supported by additional factual 

allegations, if any exist, about the alleged conversation between the decedent and the 

unidentified guard and may also be supported by factual allegations based on the SQSP 

records[.]” Dkt. 41 at 3.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the TAC is now before the court. The TAC

primarily adds allegations relating to the decedent’s placement into Administrative 

Segregation (“Ad Seg”). The TAC alleges that on January 21, 2017, defendants Jeffrey 

M. Carlton, Eric E. Evans, and Jack E. Dougery placed the decedent into Ad Seg for nondisciplinary reasons. TAC ¶ 16. Despite policies to the contrary, the decedent, who 

defendants knew to be seriously mentally ill, was left in Ad Seg for a period exceeding 72 

hours. TAC ¶¶ 17-19. On January 25, 2017, defendant April D. Maxfield, a Correctional 

Counselor at SQSP, visited the decedent and “determined that the decedent would 

remain in Ad Seg indefinitely, despite the fact that she knew the decedent was mentally 

ill, had already been in Ad Seg for five consecutive days, and knew that [the] decedent 

had requested, and had continually been denied any mental health care." TAC ¶ 22. 

Further, the TAC alleges that Maxfield knew that the decedent’s continued placement in 

Ad Seg and the continued failure to provide medical care would likely result in the 

decedent committing suicide. Id. Nonetheless, Maxfield failed to take any action to 

summon appropriate care, even though Maxfield was aware that the decedent’s mental 

health had deteriorated during his time in Ad Seg. Id. ¶ 22. 

Two days later, the decedent was found dead in his cell and the cause of death 

Case 4:18-cv-01778-PJH Document 46 Filed 01/02/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

was determined to be asphyxia resulting from suicide by hanging. Id. ¶ 23. 

After a party has amended a pleading once as a matter of course, it may only 

amend further after obtaining leave of the court, or by consent of the adverse party. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15(a). “Generally, Rule 15 advises the court that leave shall be freely given 

when justice so requires. This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence 

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

marks omitted). Leave to amend is thus ordinarily granted unless the amendment is 

futile, would cause undue prejudice to the defendants, or is being sought by plaintiffs in 

bad faith or with a dilatory motive. Id.

The State only opposes plaintiff’s motion with respect to plaintiff’s § 845.6 claim. 

The State argues that in contravention of this court’s November 29, 2018 order, plaintiff 

has failed to provide any additional context about the decedent’s conversation with the 

unidentified guard. Thus, according to the State, plaintiff should not be allowed to amend 

his § 845.6 claim. 

The court disagrees. The TAC’s allegations about the decedent’s nearly weeklong non-disciplinary placement into Ad Seg and about defendant Maxfield’s January 25 

visit elevates plaintiff’s § 845.6 claim from conclusory to plausible. Accordingly, the court 

finds that the proposed amendment would not be futile. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a TAC is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff shall file the TAC by January 4, 2019. Plaintiff shall serve all defendants by 

January 25, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2019

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cv-01778-PJH Document 46 Filed 01/02/19 Page 3 of 3