Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01170/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01170-5/pdf.json

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

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SECRETARY OF CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:22-cv-01170 GSA (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE 

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 24)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

DISREGARD PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

LODGED FOURTH AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AS IMPROPERLY FILED

(ECF No. 25)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Before this Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint

(“4thAC”). ECF No. 24. Plaintiff has lodged the 4thAC. See ECF No. 25.

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. In addition, the Clerk of 

Court will be ordered to disregard the 4thAC as improperly lodged.

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Plaintiff’s Initial Unsolicited Amended Complaint

After Plaintiff’s original complaint was docketed in September 2022 (see ECF No. 1) 

Case 1:22-cv-01170-GSA Document 28 Filed 12/17/24 Page 1 of 5
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

(original complaint), Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and along 

with it he filed an unsolicited first amended complaint (“FAC”). See ECF Nos.7 (Motion) & 8 

(FAC). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed another motion to amend requesting leave to file a second 

amended complaint (“SAC”), lodged it, and thereafter was granted leave to do so. See ECF Nos. 

10, 11 &12 (Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend; Plaintiff’s lodged SAC; Court’s grant of 

same).

On March 15, 2024, Plaintiff’s SAC was screened. ECF No. 13. In the screening order 

the Court found that the SAC failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 as it did not 

contain a short and plain statement as is required. Id. at 4. As a result, Plaintiff was ordered to 

file a third amended complaint (“TAC”). Id.

On April 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a TAC. ECF No. 14. However, approximately four 

months later—without the TAC having been screened--Plaintiff filed yet another request for leave 

to file an amended complaint and lodged with it an unsolicited 4thAC. See ECF Nos. 15, 16 

(Plaintiff’s request for leave to file fourth amended complaint; 4thAC). Because Plaintiff had not 

been granted leave to file a 4thAC, on August 26, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for 

leave to amend and disregarded Plaintiff’s lodged 4thAC. See ECF No. 17.

B. Plaintiff’s Appeal

On September 5, 2024, Plaintiff’s Notice of Interlocutory Appeal which contested the 

Court’s denial of his motion to amend was docketed and processed. ECF Nos. 18, 19. Shortly 

thereafter, on September 24, 2024, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 22. Specifically, citing to In re San Vicente Med. Partners Ltd., 

865 F.2d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1989), the Appellate Court determined that because this Court’s

order which denied Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a 4thAC was neither final nor appealable, 

the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. Id.

II. PLAINTIFF’S SECOND UNSOLICITED FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

On October 7, 2024, following the Circuit Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s interlocutory 

appeal, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for leave to file a 4thAC, lodged a 4thAC, and addressed 

his motion to the Chief Judge of this District-- apparently due to his misinterpreting of the 

Case 1:22-cv-01170-GSA Document 28 Filed 12/17/24 Page 2 of 5
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

Appellate Court’s ruling which ruled that the Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction to decide 

Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal, not that this Court lacked jurisdiction to decide Plaintiff’s motion 

for leave to file a 4thAC. ECF Nos.22 & 24. Plaintiff seemingly believes incorrectly, and 

concludes incorrectly, that because he was never advised by the Clerk of this Court of his right to 

consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, and because he in fact did not consent, that this was the 

basis for the Appellate Court’s decision finding an absence of Jurisdiction. ECF No. 24 at 1- 2. 

Finally, Plaintiff argues that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)-(d) entitles him to 

amend his complaint in good faith “without causing delay or prejudices to the defendants....” 

ECF No. 24 at 3.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Court’s Denial of Leave to Amend Unappealable

As stated above, Plaintiff’s interpretation of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on appeal is 

incorrect. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal 

because this Court’s denial of his motion to amend did not constitute a final, appealable order. 

See ECF No. 22 (Ninth Circuit opinion). As a result, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the Ninth 

Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal. 

 B. The Undersigned has Jurisdiction to Make Rulings in this Case

The undersigned has authority to issue rulings in this case. See, 28 USC 636(b)(1)(B) and 

Local Rule 302.

 C. Court’s Discretion to Deny Leave to Amend

District courts have broad discretion to deny leave to amend when a plaintiff has 

previously amended the complaint. See, Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th 

Cir. 1990) (quoting Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989)). 

Therefore, because Plaintiff in this case has previously been granted leave to amend (see above), 

it is within the discretion of the Court to deny further requests to do so.

D. Plaintiff’s Newly Lodged 4thAC Adds Unrelated Claims (Rule 20)

Of equal importance is Rule 20 which prohibits the adding of unrelated claims when 

amending a complaint. Relevantly, a comparison of Plaintiff’s original complaint with 

Case 1:22-cv-01170-GSA Document 28 Filed 12/17/24 Page 3 of 5
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

Plaintiff’s lodged 4thAC (ECF No. 25) reveals that Plaintiff has added additional defendants 

and claims that were not in his original complaint. In the original complaint, Plaintiff raises two

claims of due process violations against two defendants stemming from an alleged false “Only 

Rules Violation Report” which Plaintiff claims was authored on September 2, 2021 and later

“ratified” on January 22, 2022. See generally ECF No. 1 at 1-5 (original complaint). 

However, in the lodged 4thAC, Plaintiff raises seven claims against twelve defendants. See

ECF No. 25 at 1-22.

Of the seven claims in the lodged 4thAC, it appears that only the first claim concerns the 

alleged false “Only Rules Violation Report” contained in the original complaint. See id. at 5-6. 

As to the other 6 claims in the lodged 4thAC: 1- in claim 2, which is alleged to have occurred

on or around May 2022, concerns one of the defendants determining that Plaintiff was required 

to serve 80% of a six-year enhancement he received in his original sentence. Id. at 7-8; 2- in 

claim 3, Plaintiff alleges that as a Mexican National he is entitled to equal treatment under the 

law – like other inmates – and therefore should have received $200.00 in “release allowance”

when he was released from custody back in 1996; 3- in claim 4, Plaintiff raises claims 

regarding the loss of time credits he sustained during the period of 2006-2007; 4-claim 5

concerns three alleged false rules violation reports issued in 2024, which is well after the date 

the original complaint was filed back in September 2022; 5- claim 6 concerns an allegation of 

improper RVR hearing proceedings related to a battery charge brought against Plaintiff in May 

2022; and, 6- claim 7 concerns a denial of medical attention allegedly occurring between 

September 2022 through January 2024. Thus it appears that Claims 2 through 7 in the 4thAC

are all unrelated to the claims made in the original complaint-- and therefore violative of Rule 

20. Per Rule 20, a Plaintiff is not permitted to add new, unrelated claims when he amends his 

complaint. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (stating Plaintiff may not 

change the nature of suit by alleging new, unrelated claims). 

E. Plaintiff Has Previously Been Granted Leaves to Amend

Prior to Plaintiff’s original complaint being screened, he requested and was granted 

leave to file a first amended complaint as a matter of course. (ECF Nos. 7 & 9). Thereafter, 

Case 1:22-cv-01170-GSA Document 28 Filed 12/17/24 Page 4 of 5
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

and prior to the first amended complaint being screened, Plaintiff requested leave to file a 

second amended complaint (ECF No. 10), which was granted (ECF No. 12). Thereafter, the 

Court screened the second amended complaint and in the screening order directed Plaintiff to 

file a third amended complaint. (ECF No. 13). In compliance, on April 11, 2024, Plaintiff 

filed a third amended complaint. (ECF No. 14). This is now the operative complaint which

the Court intends to screen in due course.

V. CONCLUSION

For reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion to file a 4thAC (ECF. No. 24) will be denied

and the Clerk of Court will be directed to disregard the lodged 4thAC (ECF. No.25) as

improperly filed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s second motion for leave to file a 4thAC (fourth amended complaint) (ECF 

No. 24) is DENIED, and

2. The Clerk of Court shall DISREGARD Plaintiff’s lodged 4thAC (fourth amended 

complaint) (see ECF No. 25) as improperly filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01170-GSA Document 28 Filed 12/17/24 Page 5 of 5