Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03763/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03763-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY TILLIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LAMARUE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-03763 SI

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND, AND

VACATING HEARING

On July 8, 2005, plaintiff Gregory Tillis filed this motion for leave to amend his complaint. The motion

was set for hearing on August 12, 2005. The Court deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral

argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Having carefully considered the papers submitted, the Court

hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of the alleged assault ofplaintiff Gregory Tillis on August 14, 2003, while he was

incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison. Tillis alleges that defendant Leon Holston, who was then a

correctional officer at the prison, unlocked the door to Tillis’ cell and permitted four inmates to enter the cell

and assault Tillis. As a result of the assault, Tillis sustained several injuries. Tillis further alleges that defendants

Warlaumont and Espinoza, who were correctional officers on duty at the time, denied his pleas for medical

assistance and that he received medical treatment only after a new shift of correctional officers began. Tillis

filed administrative complaints with the prison regarding the assault but received no response. In February

2005, Officer Holston pled guilty to felony charges of assault against Tillis and filing false police reports, and

he also admitted to assisting a prison gang. Tillis, acting pro se, filed this action against defendants in August

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 39 Filed 08/08/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

26, 2004, and it was transferred to this Court in September 2004. Since he filed the initial complaint, Tillis has

survived a motion to dismissforfailureto exhaust administrative remedies, propounded discovery, and engaged

counsel. On July 8, 2005, through counsel, he filed this motion forleave to amend his complaint in light ofnew

facts uncovered. That motion is now before the Court.

LEGAL STANDARD

FederalRule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides for the amendment of pleadings by leave of court and

notes that such leave "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, the

grant or denial of a motion to amend is committed to the discretion of the district court, and denial is proper

where there is "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 the amendment, etc." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also

Lockman Found. v. Evangelical Alliance Mission, 930 F.2d 764, 772 (9th Cir. 1991). An amendment is

considered futile where the added claim could be defeated by a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.

See Wilson v. American Trans Air, Inc., 874 F.2d 386, 392 (7th Cir. 1989).

DISCUSSION

Tillis seeks leave to amend his complaint to add additionalclaims and defendants because ofthe recent

involvement of counsel and discovery of new facts. He states that he intendsto incorporate into an amended

complaint claims forfailure to protect an inmate’ssafety; failure to train prison guards and claims against prison

supervisors underthe Eighth Amendment; negligence;negligent hiring, training, and retentionoflawenforcement

officers; negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress; claims under Cal. Civil Code § 52; violations

of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations; and possibly a RICO claim. Pl.’s Mot. at 6; Reply at 4 n.

2. 

Defendants argue that amendment would be futile because plaintiff presents only “new theories,” but

no new facts. Defs.’ Opp’n at 2. In addition, they ask the Court to deny the motionwithout prejudice due to

Tillis’failure to provide a proposed amended complaint,because without the proposed amendments, the Court

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 39 Filed 08/08/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

cannotevaluate whether amendment would be futile. As plaintiff points out, however, this district’s Local Rules

do not require that a proposed amended complaint accompany a motion for leave to amend. See Waters v.

Wyerhaeuser Mortgage Co., F.2d 503, 507 (9th Cir. 1978); see also Civil L.R. 10-1 (stating that “any party

filing or moving to file an amended pleading must reproduce the entire proposed pleading and may not

incorporate any part of a prior pleading by reference” but containing no requirement that parties moving for

leave to amend must file a proposed pleading). More important, Tillis has provided evidence of new facts,

contained in news articles published since Tillis filed his original pro se complaint, and these facts are directly

relevant to the claims plaintiff proposes to add in an amended pleading. Therefore, the Court finds that

amendment would not be futile. 

Therefore, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s motion

for leave to amend. The August 12, 2005 hearing date is hereby VACATED. Plaintiff must file an

amended complaint on or before September 2, 2005. [Docket # 30]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2005 

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 39 Filed 08/08/05 Page 3 of 3