Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01942/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01942-3/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

RICHARD SANSONE, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. C. THOMAS, 

 Defendant.

1:13-cv-01942-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 20.)

ORDER FOR CLERK TO FILE FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT LODGED ON 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014

(Doc. 22.)

ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY

PENDING FURTHER ORDER

I. BACKGROUND

Richard Sansone (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This case now proceeds on the original 

Complaint filed by Plaintiff on December 2, 2013, against defendant Correctional Officer J. C. 

Thomas, for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 (Doc. 1.)

On September 2, 2014, defendant Thomas filed an Answer to the Complaint. (Doc. 14.) 

This case is now in the discovery phase, pursuant to the court’s scheduling order issued on 

September 5, 2014. (Doc. 16.)

On September 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the Complaint, and 

lodged a proposed First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 20, 22.) Defendant Thomas has not filed 

an opposition.

 

1 On May 29, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from 

this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 11.)

Case 1:13-cv-01942-DAD-EPG Document 26 Filed 11/13/14 Page 1 of 3
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

II. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND – RULE 15(a)

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the 

party=s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. 

Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse 

party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Because 

Plaintiff does not have written consent of defendant Thomas, Plaintiff requires leave of court to 

file an amended complaint.

ARule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend >shall be freely given when justice so 

requires.=@ AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 

2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts Aneed not grant leave to amend where 

the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an 

undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.@ Id. The factor of A>[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is 

insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.=@ Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, 

Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712,13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 

(9th Cir. 1999)).

Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint to make minor corrections, add Doe defendants,

and add new claims to this action. Plaintiff argues that the new claims are related to the 

existing claim in this action. 

Discussion

The court has reviewed the proposed First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff seeks to add 

defendant Jane Doe (Dental Assistant) for inadequate medical care, for asking Plaintiff 

improper questions during a dental appointment and for denying Plaintiff medical care for three 

hours after he was assaulted, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff also seeks to add 

defendant John Doe #1 (Correctional Officer) for use of excessive force in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment, for participating in the assault against Plaintiff by pouncing on Plaintiff’s 

neck with his knee. In addition, Plaintiff seeks to add defendant John Doe #2 (Correctional 

Sergeant) for denying Plaintiff medical care for three hours after he was assaulted. Further, 

Plaintiff seeks to add defendants John Doe #3 (Appeals Coordinator) and John Doe #4 

Case 1:13-cv-01942-DAD-EPG Document 26 Filed 11/13/14 Page 2 of 3
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

(Warden), for denial of access to courts and due process violations, for failing to respond to the 

inmate appeals Plaintiff submitted to them.

The court finds Plaintiff’s proposed new claims to be related, under Rule 18(a), to the 

existing excessive force claim against defendant Thomas, because they arise from the same 

allegations found in Plaintiff’s original Complaint. The court finds no evidence of bad faith by 

Plaintiff or of futility in allowing the First Amended Complaint to be filed. The court finds no 

undue delay or prejudice to Defendant in allowing Plaintiff’s amendment, and Defendant has 

not raised any argument concerning these or any other considerations. Therefore, Plaintiff’s 

motion for leave to amend shall be granted, and the Clerk shall be directed to file the proposed 

First Amended Complaint. 

The First Amended Complaint shall be screened in due time under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Therefore, discovery in this action shall be stayed pending further court order.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff=s motion for leave to amend, filed on September 18, 2014, is 

GRANTED;

2. The Clerk is directed to file Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint which was 

lodged on September 18, 2014;

3. The First Amended Complaint shall be screened in due time under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A; and

4. Discovery in this action is STAYED pending further court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01942-DAD-EPG Document 26 Filed 11/13/14 Page 3 of 3