Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01142/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01142-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN L. ERVIN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv1142-WQH-BGS

ORDER

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the motion for leave to file an amended complaint

filed by Plaintiff John. L. Ervin. (ECF No. 95). 

I. Background 

On May 6, 2014, Plaintiff John L. Ervin, proceeding pro se, commenced this

action by filing a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendant

County of San Diego (“the County”) violated Plaintiff’s constitutional right to due

process by listing him on the California Child Abuse Central Index (“CACI”). (ECF

No. 1).

On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) which

alleged claims against the County, as well as newly-named Defendants Brenda Daly,

Robert Lough, Debra Zanders-Willis, and Kamala Harris. (ECF No. 40). On

September 24, 2015, the Court granted two motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 43, 53) and

dismissed the FAC without prejudice. (ECF No. 61).

On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). 

- 1 - 14cv1142-WQH-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-01142-WQH-MSB Document 97 Filed 11/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 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

(ECF No. 75). The SAC alleged claims against the County and Does 1 through 10 for

violations of due process and equal protection of the law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The SAC also alleged a claim against Defendant Kamala Harris pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 seeking declaratory relief and alleging that California’s procedure for listing

individuals on the CACI violates Plaintiff’s constitutional due process rights.

On January 25, 2016, Defendant Kamala Harris and the County each filed

respective motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 80, 81). The Court granted the motion to

dismiss filed by Defendant Kamala Harris. (ECF No. 86 at 13-16). Pursuant to the

Younger abstention doctrine, the Court denied the County’s motion to dismiss without

prejudice and stayed the case until further order of the Court. Id. at 18-19. 

On November 18, 2016, the Court issued an order lifting the stay. (ECF No. 90

at 2). On December 7, 2016, the County filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. (ECF No.

91). On July 14, 2017, the Court granted the County’s motion to dismiss and dismissed

the SAC without prejudice as to the causes of action alleged against the County. (ECF

No. 94). The Court stated, “Plaintiff shall file any motion for leave to file an amended

complaint on or before August 11, 2017 and pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1.” Id.

II. Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint 

 On August 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended

complaint against the County. (ECF No. 95). Plaintiff contends that amendment should

be allowed because the motion is not made in bad faith and because the amended

complaint addresses the deficiencies of his prior complaints. Id. The docket reflects

that no response in opposition has been filed. On September 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed a

reply asserting that the County has “chosen not to oppose the motion to amend.” (ECF

No. 96). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 mandates that leave to amend “be freely given

when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with

extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th

Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), the Supreme

- 2 - 14cv1142-WQH-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-01142-WQH-MSB Document 97 Filed 11/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 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

Court offered several factors for district courts to consider in deciding whether to grant

a motion to amend under Rule 15(a):

In the absence of any apparent or declared reason – such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to

the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of

amendment, etc. – the leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.” Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; see also Smith v. Pac. Prop. Dev. Co., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101

(9th Cir. 2004). “Not all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight. As this circuit and

others have held, it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries

the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citations omitted). “The

party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice.” DCD Programs,

Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). “Absent prejudice, or a strong

showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule

15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

Defendant has not filed any response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. The

Court concludes that Defendant has not made a sufficiently strong showing of the

Foman factors to overcome the presumption of Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to

amend. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. 

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a third amended

complaint (ECF No. 95) is granted. No later than fourteen (14) days from the date this

Order is filed, Plaintiff may file the proposed third amended complaint which is

attached to the motion. If Plaintiff does not file the third amended complaint within

fourteen (14) days, the Court will order the Clerk of Court to close the case. 

DATED: November 3, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14cv1142-WQH-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-01142-WQH-MSB Document 97 Filed 11/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3