Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01473/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01473-2/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

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE O. SMITH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-1473 LKK GGH P

vs.

M. R. MALDONADO, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Pending before the court are: 1) defendants’ January 20, 2005 motion to amend the

answer to the complaint; and 2) defendants’ supplemental motion for summary judgment, filed

on January 20, 2005. By order filed on February 11, 2005, this court, in granting defendants’

motion for a protective order, stated the following:

Defendants have not submitted a proposed protective order for

production of relevant documents from the third party

Stringfellow’s institutional and medical history to plaintiff, as

directed in this court’s December 2, 2004 order. Instead,

defendants, by motion filed on January 20, 2005, seek

reconsideration of the December 2, 2004 order. On January 20,

2005, defendants also moved for a protective order, requesting that

certain documents filed in support of their January 20, 2005

supplemental motion for summary judgment be sealed and

reviewed in camera. Defendants’ request for reconsideration of

the December 2, 2004 order is pending before the district judge.

Case 2:02-cv-01473-LKK -GGH Document 61 Filed 06/22/05 Page 1 of 6
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

1Defendants also seek to correct the date of the assault by inmate Stringfellow from

December 5, 2001 to December 6, 2001 in the proposed amended answer. 

2

This court now directs that the CDC Central File Records and CDC

Unified Health Record of Robert Stringfellow (J-30230) and

defendants’ supplemental statement of undisputed facts in support

of their January 20, 2004 supplemental motion for summary

judgment be sealed at this time. However, the court does not at

this time grant defendants’ motion for in camera review of the

documents, nor can the undersigned discern how plaintiff is fairly

to be expected to oppose a motion for summary judgment setting

forth undisputed facts to which he has no access. The court will

revisit these issues, as appropriate, once defendants’ motion for

reconsideration of the December 2, 2004 order has been resolved.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Order, filed on February 11, 2005. 

The district judge has since affirmed the December 2, 2004 order of this court. 

See Order, filed on May 20, 2005. Concurrently, the court is filing a protective order which is an

edited version of the proposed protective order submitted by defendants on June 21, 2005.

Motion to Amend Answer

Defendants belatedly move for leave to amend their original answer because of an

alleged error of which they only took note when this court observed an admission in the answer

favoring plaintiff’s position in adjudicating plaintiff’s motion to compel. In the court’s

scheduling order filed the following year, on December 1, 2003, the undersigned set the deadline

for filing pretrial motions on May 21, 2004. The original answer from which defendants only

recently seek to beat a hasty retreat was filed on December 13, 2002. In essence, defendants seek

to substitute the following concession: “Defendants admit that inmate Stringfellow had a

disciplinary history that made placement with plaintiff improper (¶ 22)” with the following

denial: “Defendants deny that they knew or should have known that inmate Stringfellow had a

disciplinary history that made placement with plaintiff improper (¶ 22). Defendants further deny

that they made the housing assignment that placed Stringfellow with plaintiff.”1 

\\\\\

Case 2:02-cv-01473-LKK -GGH Document 61 Filed 06/22/05 Page 2 of 6
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

3

Defendants do not offer a particularly persuasive reason for the alleged error,

instead submitting a declaration by the deputy attorney general who filed the answer, wherein he

speculates that the “drafting error” may have occurred because he had been contemplating filing

a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(6), in which the allegations of the second amended complaint must be admitted, but

later decided to file an answer instead, neglecting to alter, for no apparent reason, only that

concession. Motion to Amend (MTA), Declaration of R. Michael Llewellyn, ¶ 3. Counsel

indicates that his review of the case file at the time when the admission was pointed out to him,

following the issuance of this court’s order on December 2, 2004, did not show that he had been

informed by any defendant that placement of inmate Stringfellow with plaintiff was improper,

nor had he been provided with records from which he could infer same. Id. Counsel’s

recollection of the filing of an answer in a case some two years prior in a case with which he is

no longer associated is understandably dim; however, simply because he believes it now to have

been an “inadvertent error” is not sufficient for the court to grant leave to amend the answer at

this advanced stage of the litigation.

Moreover, prejudice to defendant is self-evident, if defendants are allowed to

amend their answer with no more basis than simply alleging “the interests of justice” and a vague

assertion of unintended error. Defendants insist that leave to amend was sought as soon as they

became aware of the putative error. Defendants make no explanation as to why no leave to

amend was sought prior to the court’s having taken note of a significant admission in

adjudicating plaintiff’s motion to compel, almost two years after the original answer was filed.

Review of the court file indicates that defendants’ current counsel, Supervising Deputy Attorney

General James E. Flynn, filed a status report for defendants on November 21, 2003, specifically

referencing the December 13, 2002 answer. Defendants’ Status Report, p. 1, filed on 11/21/03. 

That counsel did not take time to review that answer before apparently standing upon it should

not ultimately devolve to the plaintiff’s prejudice when the contents of that pleading are later

Case 2:02-cv-01473-LKK -GGH Document 61 Filed 06/22/05 Page 3 of 6
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

4

relied on by the court, after which only then do defendants wish to distance themselves from it.

“It is settled that the grant of leave to amend the pleadings pursuant to Rule 15(a)

is within the discretion of the trial court.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401

U.S. 321, 330 (1971). Leave to amend pleadings “shall be freely given when justice so requires.”

Rule 15(a). Granting leave to amend, however, “is by no means automatic.” Wimm v. Jack

Eckerd Corp., 3 F.3d 137, 139 (5th Cir.1993) (quoting Addington v. Farmer’s Elevator Mut. Ins.

Co., 650 F.2d 663, 666 (5th Cir. Unit A July 1981)). Among factors that may be considered are

undue delay, bad faith or dilatory action on the part of the moving party, undue prejudice to the

opposing party, and futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227,

230 (1962)).

The Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision not to grant defendants leave to

amend the answer, even in a case where no reasons were stated. Komie v. Buehler Corp., 449

F.2d 644 (9th Cir. 1971). There the appellate court found that justification for the lower court’s

decision lay in the tardiness of the motion, noting that the alleged facts of the proposed

amendment, as is the case here, were readily available to defendants earlier. Id. at 648. In a

subsequent case, the Ninth Circuit observed that the prejudice to the plaintiff in Komie was

“evident.” Howey v. U.S., 481 U.S. 1187, 1191 n.2 (9th Cir. 1973). 

In support of their motion, defendants rely almost exclusively on the “in the

interests of justice” standard in making their motion. See Unispec Development Corp. v.

Harwood K. Smith & Partners, 124 F.R.D. 211, 216-17 (D.Ariz.1988) (leave to amend answer

denied where movant relied exclusively on “justice requires” standard to support untimely

motion). “If justice requires anything, it is that plaintiff should not at this late date have to

defend against such a dilatory claim, not that defendant should be afforded the opportunity to

assert it affirmatively.” Id. at 217. Defendants’ vague explanation for the error is not sufficient. 

Defendants’ reliance primarily on the assertion that “justice requires” that their

motion for leave to amend should be granted is unpersuasive. Defendants have not offered the

Case 2:02-cv-01473-LKK -GGH Document 61 Filed 06/22/05 Page 4 of 6
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

5

court an adequate justification upon which the court could reasonably exercise its discretion to

grant the motion, especially in view of their undue delay in filing the instant motion and the

prejudice to plaintiff if the motion were granted. Consequently, defendants’ motion for leave to

amend their answer to the complaint will be denied.

Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendants move for summary judgment, relying almost wholly on the CDC

records of inmate Robert Stringfellow, records which were placed under seal on defendants’

motion for a protective order, the same records that were at issue in this court’s December 2,

2004 order upon a motion to compel by plaintiff. Plaintiff is in the same position he was in

when the court vacated defendants’ prior motion summary judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(f), and ordered the production of inmate Stringfellow’s prison record, pursuant to a protective

order. With respect to the pending supplemental motion for summary judgment, plaintiff has had

no access to that production nor to the undisputed material facts set forth by defendants. The

court will vacate the pending supplemental motion pending production to plaintiff of

Stringfellow’s prison file, pursuant to the concurrently filed protective order. As set forth in the

now affirmed order of December 2, 2004, defendants will have 30 days to produce Stringfellow’s

CDC file to plaintiff. Once defendants have filed proof of service of production of the file, they

may re-notice their vacated motion for summary judgment, after which plaintiff will have 30

days to file his opposition to defendants’ motion and defendants will have 15 days to file a reply. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for leave to file an amended answer, filed on January

20,2005, is denied;

2. Defendants’ supplemental motion for summary judgment, filed on January 20,

2005, is VACATED without prejudice from the court’s calendar;

3. Subject to the concurrently filed protective order, defendants must produce

Stringfellow’s CDC file to plaintiff and file proof of service thereof, within 30 days; defendants

Case 2:02-cv-01473-LKK -GGH Document 61 Filed 06/22/05 Page 5 of 6
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

6

may then re-notice their vacated motion for summary judgment immediately thereafter, after

which plaintiff will have 30 days to file his opposition to defendants’ motion, and defendants will

have 15 days to file a reply. 

DATED: 6/22/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

smit1473.supp

Case 2:02-cv-01473-LKK -GGH Document 61 Filed 06/22/05 Page 6 of 6