Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00446/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00446-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELTON W. ERVIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MERCED POLICE DEPARTMENT et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-446-GSA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(Doc. 90)

On June 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the First Amended Complaint

(“FAC”). (Doc. 90). Plaintiff seeks to amend the FAC to add a cause of action for cruel and 

unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 90). Upon a review of the request, 

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

Under Rule 15(a), a plaintiff may amend his complaint once “as a matter of course,” and 

without leave of court, before a response has been filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1); Bonin v. 

Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). However, a party can only amend the pleading with 

the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave once a responsive pleading has been filed. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Here, Defendants answered by filing a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC

(Doc. 6) so leave of the court is required for Plaintiff to file a Second Amended complaint.

(“SAC”).

Case 1:13-cv-00446-EPG Document 116 Filed 10/06/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a) provides that a court “should freely give leave [to amend] when 

justice so requires.” This policy is “to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC 

v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F. 3d 1048, 1052 (9th 2003) (citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has 

summarized these factors to include the following: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) prejudice to 

the opponent; and (4) futility of amendment. Loehr v. Ventura County Cmty. Coll. Dist., 743 F.2d 

1310, 1319 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Upon a review of these the four factors, the Court finds that permitted Plaintiff’s 

amendment would be futile. Plaintiff’s FAC initially contained an Eighth Amendment claim for 

cruel and unusual punishment on the basis that Defendants used excessive force against him. 

(Doc. 1, pg.7). However, Judge Ishii has already issued a ruling dismissing this cause of action 

noting that causes of action under the Eighth Amendment apply “only after the State has complied 

with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal prosecution.” Ingraham v. 

Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671, n.40 (1977). (Doc. 13, pg. 4). In other words, a cause of action under

the Eighth Amendment for cruel and unusual punishment only applies to events that occur after

there has been a criminal conviction and sentence, which is not applicable here. Where the 

excessive force claim arises in the context of an arrest or investigatory stop of a free citizen, it is 

most properly characterized as one invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment.” Graham 

v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989); see also Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273-274 (1993) 

(Fourth Amendment is appropriate for analysis of depravation of pretrial liberty interests). 

Plaintiff’s FAC already contains a Fourth Amendment claim. Therefore, any amendment to the 

complaint would be futile and in direct contradiction of Judge Ishii’s prior order. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc. 90) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00446-EPG Document 116 Filed 10/06/15 Page 2 of 2