Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01627/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01627-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

15-cv-01627-CAB-AGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Gregory D. Foley,

Plaintiff,

v.

Corey Kaldenbach, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15-cv-01627-CAB-AGS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO:

(1) GRANT FOLEY’S MOTION TO 

AMEND COMPLAINT [Doc. 62];

(2) DENY FOLEY’S MOTION FOR 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT [Doc. 66];

(3) DENY CITY OF OCEANSIDE’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. 46]; and

(4) DENY RONALD NEVARES’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. 60].

A criminal jury found Gregory Foley guilty of resisting an officer with violence. 

Based on the same underlying facts, Foley brought this civil rights action, alleging the 

police used excessive force. Because the criminal jury necessarily rejected that argument—

and its verdict remains unchallenged—this suit seems to be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 

512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).

Of course, Foley later amended his complaint. But that made matters worse. The 

new pleading contains no factual recitation whatsoever and omits the previously-named 

Case 3:15-cv-01627-CAB-AGS Document 79 Filed 01/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

15-cv-01627-CAB-AGS

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

defendant City of Oceanside. Now Foley seeks leave to amend and other relief, while the 

defendants move to dismiss due to the current complaint’s alleged deficiencies.

1. Foley’s Motion to Amend the Complaint

Foley asks to amend his pro se complaint again, because he “was not aware he could 

state multi[p]le S[t]atu[t]es and Relief in one complaint.” [Doc. 62, at 2.] Foley’s lack of 

legal sophistication is borne out by these proceedings. His latest complaint, for instance, 

is a threadbare listing of new defendants, suggesting that he incorrectly assumed the 

document automatically incorporated his prior allegations and defendants. Compare

[Doc. 28] with [Doc. 1].

Because the “court should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so 

requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), I recommend that Foley’s motion to amend be 

GRANTED. And I recommend that Foley be instructed to set forth in his second amended 

complaint all putative defendants, causes of action, and factual bases for his claims.1

2. Foley’s Motion for Default Judgment

Foley also seeks a default judgment for failure to timely answer the complaint. But 

only defendant Ronald Nevares was properly served, and he timely filed a motion to 

dismiss. That motion tolled the answer deadline, which remains stayed. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12(a)(4)(A) (“serving a motion [to dismiss]” delays the responsive pleading deadline 

until “14 days after notice” that the court “denie[d] the motion or postpone[d] its 

disposition until trial”). Thus, I recommend that this motion be DENIED.

3. Motions to Dismiss

Based on the recommendation that Foley be allowed to amend his complaint, I also 

recommend that both the City of Oceanside’s and Ronald Nevares’s motions to dismiss the 

current complaint be DENIED as moot.

 

1 Unless Foley names the City of Oceanside in his second amended complaint, I 

would recommend that the City be dismissed from this action. By omitting that defendant 

from his latest complaint, Foley waived his claims against the City.

Case 3:15-cv-01627-CAB-AGS Document 79 Filed 01/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

15-cv-01627-CAB-AGS

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

The Court directs Foley to review and comply with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 72. If he fails to comply with Rule 72, Foley may waive these issues on appeal.

Dated: January 30, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-01627-CAB-AGS Document 79 Filed 01/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3