Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01054/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01054-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GRANVILLE MARSHALL, M.D., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CITY OF SUSANVILLE, COUNTY OF 

LASSEN, BANNER COMMUNITY 

HOSPITAL, DAVE ANDERSON, and 

DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 

 Defendant. /

No. CV. S-04-1054 RRB KJM 

Memorandum of Opinion

and Order

 

Plaintiff Granville Marshall, M.D. seeks to amend his 

complaint against the City of Susanville and Lassen County to 

join individual defendants Steven South, Sherry Henderson, 

Debbie Runnels, and Patrick Garrity. Marshall filed the motion 

seven months after the court issued a pretrial scheduling order, 

stating that “[n]o further joinder of parties or amendments to 

pleadings is permitted except with leave of the court, good 

cause having been shown.” “Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard 

primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the 

Case 2:04-cv-01054-RRB -KJM Document 125 Filed 07/02/07 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 

amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 

609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted). A finding of diligence is inappropriate if a 

“[p]laintiff was aware of those circumstances [motivating the 

amendment] when she submitted her status report and yet said 

nothing about them.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 

608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). 

 Marshall has not satisfied Rule 16(b)’s good cause 

standard.1

 Marshall was aware of the names of the proposed 

defendants and their roles in the incident at issue more than 

three years before filing this motion, as demonstrated by his 

September 30, 2003 letter to the Department of Justice. 

Marshall does not allege any material factual developments since 

the letter was sent to explain why he now seeks to join the 

parties. Therefore, he has not established that he was diligent 

in proposing the amendment. 

Despite the delay, Marshall argues that there is good cause 

for joinder of the parties because he recently obtained new 

counsel and joining the proposed defendants would only be a 

 

1

 Moreover, significant prejudice would result if the court 

were to grant the motion. Shortly after Marshall moved to amend 

his pleadings, defendants filed timely summary judgment motions. 

Joining the proposed defendants would derail the pre-trial 

schedule, force a reopening of discovery, and likely render 

extensive summary judgment work by the current defendants 

irrelevant. 

Case 2:04-cv-01054-RRB -KJM Document 125 Filed 07/02/07 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 

“clarification,” due to prior references to them in the body of 

the original complaint. These arguments lack merit. His desire 

“to have a second bite at the apple” does not constitute good 

cause. Porter v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., No. Civ. S. 00-978, 2006 

WL 467980, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2006). Moreover, references 

to two of the individual defendants and discussion of theories 

of individual liability in the original complaint’s body are not 

sufficient to justify the joinder of the proposed defendants, 

who were neither served with the original complaint nor given an 

opportunity to participate in the action. See Silva v. County 

of Tehama, No. Civ. S. 03-1853, 2005 WL 2709512, at *2 (E.D. 

Cal. Oct. 20, 2005) (finding no good cause to substitute named 

individuals for Doe defendants, mentioned in the original 

complaint, when plaintiff knew their names for eighteen months 

before moving to amend). Marshall unsuccessfully argues that it 

was “obvious” that plaintiff intended to sue the proposed 

defendants and that the original defendants should have 

anticipated their inclusion in the action. It is Marshall’s 

burden to “prosecute his case properly” and he “cannot blame 

[defendant] for his failure to do so.” Johnson, 975 at 609-10. 

For these reasons, the court DENIES the motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of June, 2007. 

 s/RALPH R. BEISTLINE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-01054-RRB -KJM Document 125 Filed 07/02/07 Page 3 of 3