Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06380/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06380-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRACY LEE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

N. GRANNIS, etc.; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-6380 MHP (pr)

ORDER 

INTRODUCTION

This is a pro se prisoner's civil rights action in which the plaintiff complains that

defendants have interfered with his religious freedom. The matter is now before the court for

consideration of plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint and defendants'

motion for the court to screen that proposed pleading. For the reasons discussed below, the

court will deny leave to file a third amended complaint, deem the second amended complaint

amended to include a request for injunctive relief, and set a briefing schedule for the filing of

dispositive motions. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a complaint and, before the court reviewed it, filed an amended

complaint concerning problems he encountered at Pelican Bay State Prison in his efforts to

obtain tobacco for use in religious ceremonies. The court reviewed his amended complaint,

dismissed it with leave to amend, and gave him specific directions as to the deficiencies he

needed to cure. 

He then filed a second amended complaint, which the court reviewed and ordered

Case 3:07-cv-06380-MHP Document 25 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 5
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

served on four defendants. The court found cognizable a claim under the Religious Land

Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, against

defendants Bliesner, Cook, Horel and Grannis for denial of his requests to have tobacco

products for his religious ceremony. Order Of Service, p. 2. The court dismissed the First

Amendment claim, stating:

When it dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend, the court

instructed Taylor that he needed to make certain allegations to cure his inadequatelypled claims for a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment's right

to freedom of religion and for retaliation. Taylor did not attempt to allege a Free

Exercise or a retaliation claim in his second amended complaint. Those claims

therefore are dismissed.

Order Of Service, pp. 2-3.

Plaintiff now wants to file a third amended complaint. His third amended complaint

(1) names three new defendants, at least one of whom "will be leaving [her] position soon"

and will require further amendment to add yet another defendant, TAC, p. 2; (2) adds a First

Amendment claim without explaining why he had failed to include it in his second amended

complaint a year earlier; (3) adds numerous allegations about events that occurred at a

different prison (i.e., Kern Valley State Prison) after he filed this action; and (4) adds a

request for injunctive relief to the prayer for relief. See Third Amended Complaint (docket #

22).

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) permits a party to amend with leave of court,

and provides that the "court should freely give leave when justice so requires." See Janicki

Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994); cf. id. (attempt to amend complaint

requiring amendment of scheduling order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 must be based upon good

cause). Leave need not be granted where the amendment of the complaint would cause the

opposing party undue prejudice, is sought in bad faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or

creates undue delay. See id.; Roberts v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 661 F.2d 796, 798 (9th Cir.

1981). A district court's discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where the

plaintiff has previously filed an amended complaint. Wagh v. Metris Direct, Inc., 363 F.3d

Case 3:07-cv-06380-MHP Document 25 Filed 05/04/10 Page 2 of 5
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

3

821, 830 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Sybersound Records, Inc. v. UAV

Corp., 517 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2008). 

The court may permit a party to serve supplemental pleadings "setting forth

transactions or occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading

sought to be supplemented." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). The power to grant supplemental

pleadings is discretionary and "upon such terms as are just." Id.

The interests of justice do not support granting leave to file the third amended

complaint. First, the new pleading would create undue delay in this case which is almost

three years old because the court and the parties would have to wait several months while the

new defendants are served with process. Second, if amendment is allowed for the events at

plaintiff's new prison, amendment likely will have to be allowed every time plaintiff is

moved to a new prison and that could result in repeated delays. Third, plaintiff already

abandoned his First Amendment claim. That claim was dismissed earlier because plaintiff

did not comply with the court's order of dismissal with leave to amend; in his third amended

complaint, he simply adds it back without explaining why he chose not to plead it in his

second amended complaint in compliance with the court's order. It is not in the interest of

justice to allow litigants to ignore court orders and deadlines. Third, plaintiff has already

filed an original complaint, a first amended complaint, and a second amended complaint, and

offers no explanation of why he needs to further amend with regard to the original defendants

at this late date. Fourth, the claims against the new defendants about events at the different

prison occurring after this action was filed (which are more in the nature of a supplemental

rather than an amended pleading) do not appear to be properly joined. While there are some

common questions of law, the facts for the claims against the new defendants will be

different, as they concern prison officials' actions at a separate prison in response to a

separate requests for tobacco. The administrative appeal response attached to the second

amended complaint suggests that one of the main motivators for the original defendants' 

denial of plaintiff's request for tobacco was the deficiency in the information plaintiff

provided to Pelican Bay officials about his religion and the role of tobacco in it. The facts

Case 3:07-cv-06380-MHP Document 25 Filed 05/04/10 Page 3 of 5
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

4

regarding plaintiff's request at his new prison would be different. Fifth, adding the new

defendants and new claims would introduce a difficult procedural issue that does not exist for

the claims against the existing defendants. It is at least questionable whether the exhaustion

statute would require the dismissal of the new defendants and claims because the operative

facts – and, therefore, any exhaustion efforts -- did not occur before this action was filed. 

The statute requires that prison administrative remedies be exhausted before the action is

filed rather than during the pendency of the action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e; McKinney v.

Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002). 

There is one part of the proposed third amended complaint that can be added by

amendment to the second amended complaint: the request for injunctive relief. In his second

amended complaint, plaintiff's prayer for relief requested declaratory relief, damages, and

"such additional relief as this court may deem just and proper." Second Amended

Complaint, p. 7. In his third amended complaint, plaintiff's prayer for relief added a request

for permanent injunctive relief "in the form of allowing plaintiff to receive from outside via

first class mail tobacco products. Taylor shall be allowed to possess and use the tobacco

products for religious reasons." Third Amended Complaint, p. 12. The court will permit the

amendment, and deem the second amended complaint amended to include a request for

injunctive relief. Plaintiff does not need to add the officials at his new prison as defendants

to make his injunctive relief request meaningful. One of the existing defendants (i.e.,

Grannis) is the chief of inmate appeals at the CDCR headquarter and injunctive relief against

her likely would cover plaintiff at whatever CDCR prison he resides. 

CONCLUSION

Defendants' motion for the court to screen the third amended complaint is

GRANTED. (Docket # 23.) This order does the requested screening. 

Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint is DENIED. (Docket #

21.) The court will permit an amendment to the second amended complaint to add a request

for injunctive relief. The second amended complaint is deemed amended to include a request

for an injunction compelling defendants to allow plaintiff to receive tobacco products for use

Case 3:07-cv-06380-MHP Document 25 Filed 05/04/10 Page 4 of 5
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

5

in religious services. With that amendment, the second amended complaint remains the

operative pleading.

In order to move this case toward resolution, the court sets the following new briefing

schedule for dispositive motions. 

 1. No later than June 18, 2010, defendants must file and serve a motion for

summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are of the opinion that this

case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they must so inform the court prior to the

date the motion is due.

2. No later than July 23, 2010, plaintiff must file and serve on respondent's

counsel his opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion. In preparing

his opposition, plaintiff should bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary

judgment in the order of service.

3. No later than August 9, 2010, defendants must file and serve any reply

brief. 

Due to the advanced age of this case and the narrowness of the issues remaining for

adjudication, the parties should not expect to receive extensions of any of the deadlines set

above except upon a specific showing of good cause. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/30/2010 _____________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-06380-MHP Document 25 Filed 05/04/10 Page 5 of 5