Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05269/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05269-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY COLEMAN,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

MOSS D. POSNER, M.D., et

al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-5269 BZ

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND

GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

The plaintiff, now represented by counsel, has moved to

amend his complaint to additionally allege a violation of his

Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983, to add

correctional officers Galindo, Hall and Dobson, former warden

Anthony Lamarque and a number of John Does as defendants, and

to extend the deadline to add additional defendants. 

The decision to grant or deny leave to amend is within

the discretion of the Court. Swanson v. United States Forest

Svc., 87 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996). Generally, leave to

amend will be granted unless the opponent makes a showing of

undue prejudice, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of

the movant, or futility of the amendment. Martinez v. Newport

Beach, 125 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Case 3:04-cv-05269-BZ Document 39 Filed 10/24/05 Page 1 of 4
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

Plaintiff's complaint arises from alleged mistreatment

while serving a sentence in Salinas Valley State Prison. As a

prisoner serving a sentence, plaintiff's rights are protected

by the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual

punishment. The Supreme Court has held that where a

particular Amendment provides explicit protection against a

type of governmental behavior, that Amendment rather than

Fourteenth Amendment due process forms the proper basis of a

civil rights claim. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273

(1994); Armendariz v. Penman, 75 F.3d 1311, 1319 (9th Cir.

1996). Plaintiff has already brought a claim based on the

Eighth Amendment, and there is no separate or alternative

analysis for a claim based on the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Plaintff cites no case from any court where a plaintiff was

allowed to allege both Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment

violations on a claim of medical mistreatment in a prison. 

The proposed claim is therefore redundant and futile. See

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 90 F.3d 351,

356 (9th Cir. 1996). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's

motion to add Fourteenth Amendment claim is DENIED.

Plaintiff also seeks to add additional defendants. As

the statute of limitations period has run, additional

defendants must relate back under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 15(c). With regard to the additional named

defendants, the only issue before this Court is whether the

plaintiff's failure to include the additional defendants in

the original complaint constitutes a "mistake" under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). Defendants have not cited any

Case 3:04-cv-05269-BZ Document 39 Filed 10/24/05 Page 2 of 4
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

authority which gives a binding definition of the word

“mistake” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). I am

persuaded by those cases which have adopted a broad definition

of “mistake”. See e.g. Centuori v. Experian Information

Solutions, Inc., 329 F.Supp. 2d 1133, 1138-39 (D.Ariz. 2004).

In considering the issue, I note that plaintiff filed his

original complaint pro se, that the names of the additional

named defendants did appear in the appendices to the original

complaint, that the plaintiff may have intended to name those

parties as defendants in his original complaint and failed to

do so only because of a lack of understanding of legal

formalities, and plaintiff derives no tactical advantage from

adding additional defendants now rather than earlier. 

Further, pro se plaintiffs are held to a less stringent

pleading standard. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th

Cir. 1986). I hold that plaintiff's omission to include

Correctional Officers Galindo, Hall and Dobson, former warden

Anthony Lamarque constitutes a "mistake" under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 15(c). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

plaintiff's motion to amend complaint by adding Correctional

Officers Galindo, Hall and Dobson, former warden Anthony

Lamarque is GRANTED.

Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint by adding a number

of John Doe defendants and to extend the deadline to add

defendants. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not

contain any provisions allowing for unknown defendants, and

their use is disfavored. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d

637, 642-43 (9th Cir. 1980). However, where the identities of

Case 3:04-cv-05269-BZ Document 39 Filed 10/24/05 Page 3 of 4
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

defendants are not known prior to the filing of a complaint,

plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to

uncover those identities. Id. Extending the deadline to add

properly named defendants, subject to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 15, will achieve the same result of discovering the

identities of unnamed defendants as allowing John Doe

defendants. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion

to amend complaint by adding John Doe defendants is DENIED,

and plaintiff’s motion to extend time to add additional named

defendants is GRANTED. Plaintiff must name additional

defendants by November 30, 2005.

Dated: October 24, 2005

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\COLEMAN\complaint.amend.wpd

Case 3:04-cv-05269-BZ Document 39 Filed 10/24/05 Page 4 of 4