Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01409/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01409-16/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

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

I. Background

Plaintiff Kelvin Sims is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendant Lopez for 

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and against Defendants Akanno and Lopez for 

deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment and medical malpractice under state law.

On August 13, 2012, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order in this matter. 

Pursuant to that order, the deadline to amend pleadings expired on February 13, 2013. (ECF No. 35.)

On July 8, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff 

did not file an opposition. Instead, on August 28, 2013, Plaintiff requested appointment of counsel. 

(ECF No. 63.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s request on August 29, 2013. (ECF No. 64.) 

KELVIN SIMS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SHERRY LOPEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-001409-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 73)

Case 1:10-cv-01409-BAM Document 81 Filed 06/25/14 Page 1 of 4
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

More than three months later, on December 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed an untimely motion for an 

enlargement of time to oppose Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff again requested 

the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 66.) On January 15, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request 

for the appointment of counsel. However, in light of the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 

their merits, the Court excused the late filing and granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file his 

opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s opposition was due on February 14, 2014. 

(ECF No. 67.)

On March 3, 2014, after expiration of the deadline to file his opposition, Plaintiff filed a 

second request for an enlargement of time to file his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 

(ECF No. 68.) The Court granted the request and set the deadline for Plaintiff’s opposition as April 7, 

2014. (ECF No. 69.)

On April 7, 2014, in lieu of an opposition, Plaintiff requested a third enlargement of time to file 

his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 70.) The Court granted the request,

but noted that because the motion for summary judgment had been pending since July 2013 any 

further extensions of time could result in prejudice to Defendants. Therefore, the Court cautioned 

Plaintiff that any further extensions of time must be supported by good cause. Plaintiff’s deadline to 

file his opposition was May 8, 2014. (ECF No. 71.)

Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Instead, on May 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking 

another thirty-day extension of time to file his opposition. (ECF No. 72.) On May 29, 2014, during 

pendency of the motion for an extension of time, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file an 

amended complaint. (ECF No. 73.) Thereafter, Plaintiff also filed a purported opposition to the 

motion for summary judgment on June 2, 2014. (ECF No. 74.) Defendants opposed the motion for 

leave to amend the complaint on June 5, 2014. (ECF No. 75.) Defendants also opposed the motion 

for an extension of time and filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary 

judgment. (ECF Nos. 75, 76.) 

The deadline to file any reply to the motion seeking leave to amend the complaint has passed 

and the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 

Case 1:10-cv-01409-BAM Document 81 Filed 06/25/14 Page 2 of 4
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

II. Discussion

A. Proposed Amendment

Plaintiff has not submitted a proposed amended complaint for the Court’s consideration. 

However, according to Plaintiff’s moving papers, he seeks to amend his complaint to allege a claim 

for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendant Akanno based on (1) 

termination of Plaintiff’s narcotic analgesic, Fentanyl, without notice and hearing; and (2) Plaintiff’s 

subsequent withdrawal from the medication without detox. (ECF No. 73, p. 3.) 

B. Legal Standard

As Plaintiff’s request to amend is after expiration of the Scheduling Order deadline for 

amendment of pleadings, the Court must apply the standard for amending a scheduling order under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, rather than the liberal amendment standard of Rule 15. Coleman 

v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court correctly addressed motion for 

leave to amend under Rule 16 because it had issued a pretrial scheduling order that established a 

timetable for amending the pleadings and the motion was filed after the deadline had expired).

Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the 

judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily considers the 

diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 

609 (9th Cir. 1992). The district court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be 

met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was not diligent, the 

inquiry should end. Id.

Here, Plaintiff has not demonstrated diligence in seeking the proposed amendment. Plaintiff 

made no effort to seek modification of the scheduling order to extend the deadline to amend his 

complaint after the relevant deadline to amend the pleadings expired more than one year ago. Rather, 

Plaintiff waited until he was faced with Defendants’ motion for summary judgment to seek any 

amendment of his pleadings. Although Plaintiff attributes his failure to amend on the lack of legal 

counsel and the loss of his inmate assistant after a transfer in July 2010, this is not sufficient. The 

Court did not issue the relevant Discovery and Scheduling Order until August 2012. “In general, pro 

se representation does not excuse a party from complying with a court’s orders and with the Federal 

Case 1:10-cv-01409-BAM Document 81 Filed 06/25/14 Page 3 of 4
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

Rules of Civil Procedure.” Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856–57 (8th 

Cir.1996). summet

Furthermore, Plaintiff knew of Defendant Akanno’s termination of the Fentanyl patch at the 

outset of this litigation. Plaintiff’s declaration, which was filed with the complaint, states, “On June 

03, 2010, KVSP medical staff and Dr. Akanno discontinued treating my back pains with the fentanyl 

patch.” (ECF No. 1, ¶ 34.) However, Plaintiff did not allege that he suffered any withdrawal or other 

symptoms from discontinuation of the patch. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also does not explain why he 

requires amendment to a complaint that includes allegations involving discontinuance of the Fentanyl 

patch. 

Additionally, in his moving papers, Plaintiff appears to suggest that he received information 

regarding the proposed amendment when Defendant Akanno responded to Plaintiff’s interrogatory 

requests. (ECF No. 73, p. 4.) However, Defendant Akanno responded to the relevant interrogatory on 

November 9, 2012, which was more than one year ago. (ECF No. 75, p. 6.) Plaintiff does not explain 

why he did not seek to amend upon receipt of Defendant Akanno’s interrogatory responses.

Plaintiff has not established good cause and his motion for leave to amend shall be denied. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 

2002).

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is HEREBY 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01409-BAM Document 81 Filed 06/25/14 Page 4 of 4