Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00069/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00069-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL PROVENCIO, JR., personally )

and as a successor in interest to DANIEL )

PROVENCIO, deceased, by his guardian )

ad litem, Maria Lucero, et al, )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

PATRICIA L. VAZQUEZ, et al )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1: 07 - CV - 00069 - AWI - BAK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

STRIKE

ORDER STRIKING FOURTH

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Documents #152)

On July 29, 2009, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Defendant

Michael Songer’s motion to dismiss. In the order, the court addressed newly discovered claims

concerning Defendant Songer. The court stated as follows:

Plaintiffs, in their opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, set forth two new

theories of liability, which Plaintiffs explicitly admit are based upon information

they acquired after filing their third amended complaint. Plaintiffs, however,

contend that the theories are present in the third amended complaint. Plaintiffs

first new theory of liability alleges that Defendant had an obligation to train WSP

medical staff to recognize “the nature and types of injuries that may result” from

the use of “less than lethal weapons” such as the “‘risk of potentially life

threatening sequella’ following the impact of a high velocity projectile to the

head.” Opposition to Mot. to Dismiss at 7. As the court understands it, Plaintiffs

second new theory of liability alleges that Defendant enacted a policy of requiring

a “medical doctor’s consent” before transporting an inmate outside WSP in

violation of California Code of Regulations Title 15, section 3350.2 and

Provencio’s Eighth Amendment rights.

Case 1:07-cv-00069-OWW -JLT Document 160 Filed 02/19/10 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

The court concluded that if Plaintiffs wished to further pursue this first new theory of liability

they must request leave to file a fourth amended complaint. As to the second new theory, the

court found that if Plaintiffs wished to further pursue the second new theory of liability they must

file a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. However, on the last page of the

court’s order, in the section entitled “ORDER” the court found that Plaintiffs were given leave to

file an amended complaint within twenty days.

On August 18, 2009, the court reviewed the July 29, 2009 order. The court noted that

the August 18, 2009 order contained inconsistent instructions on whether Plaintiffs could file an

amended complaint or needed to file a motion to file an amended complaint. To resolve this

inconsistency, the court gave Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint within twenty days. 

On September 3, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint. Besides adding the

two new theories against Defendant Songer, the fourth amended complaint added new factual

allegations against other Defendants. 

On September 28, 2009, Defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the fourth

amended complaint because it included allegations not allowed for by the court’s August 18,

2009 and July 29, 2009 orders.

On October 16, 2009, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion. Plaintiffs

contend that the amendments were allowed because the court stated in the August 18, 2009 order

that Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs also list the reasons why

an amended complaint should be allowed.

On October 23, 2009, Defendants filed a reply brief.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the court to strike from “any

pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous

matter.” The purpose of a Rule 12(f) motion is to avoid the costs that arise from litigating

spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial. Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins

2

Case 1:07-cv-00069-OWW -JLT Document 160 Filed 02/19/10 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

Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9 Cir.1983). th

DISCUSSION

The entire focus of the court’s July 29, 2009 order was to address Defendant Songer’s

motion to dismiss in which he contended that the doe allegations did not state a claim and other

allegations concerning Defendant Songer were not contained in the operative complaint. This

order did not address other Defendants or other causes of action. Unfortunately, the court’s July

29, 2009 order provided inconsistent instructions on what Plaintiffs could do to amend the

complaint to contain the two newly discovered theories against Defendant Songer. In the

“Discussion Section” the court stated Plaintiffs would have to file a motion to amend the

complaint to include these two new theories. In the “Order Section”, the court stated Plaintiffs

could amend the complaint with the new theories without leave of court. Noting this

inconsistency, on August 18, 2009, the court resolved the inconsistency in the method that was

easiest for Plaintiffs by allowing the amendment. 

The court recognizes that the August 18, 2009 order did not specifically limit Plaintiff’s

amendment to the new theories against Defendant Songer. However, the August 18, 2009 order

cannot be read outside the context of the July 29, 2009 order – An order that limited any

amendment or proposed amendment to the new theories about Defendant Songer. Thus,

Plaintiffs’ fourth amended complaint violates the court’s order to the extent it contains

allegations other than those asserting a new theory against Defendant Songer.

The court finds the best remedy is for the court to strike the fourth amended complaint

and allow Plaintiffs leave to file a fifth amended complaint that complies with the court’s July

29, 2009 and August 18, 2009 orders and that limits any amendment to the new theories

involving Defendant Songer.

//

 

3

Case 1:07-cv-00069-OWW -JLT Document 160 Filed 02/19/10 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

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Defendants’ motion to strike is GRANTED;

2. The fourth amended complaint is hereby struck; 

3. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint alleging the two new theories involving

Defendant Songer found in the court’s July 29, 2009 order within fifteen days of

this order’s date of service; and

4. Plaintiffs’ request that they be allowed to add additional theories as to other

Defendants in yet another amended complaint will be addressed in due course by

the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 1:07-cv-00069-OWW -JLT Document 160 Filed 02/19/10 Page 4 of 4