Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00775/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00775-12/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

Felton Guillory a.k.a. Shomari Naeem

Shuaibe, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

James E. Tilton, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV07-00775-ROS (PC)

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 45), Defendants’

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 47), Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order

(Doc. 48), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 49). As discussed, these

Motions will be denied.

BACKGROUND

On May 29, 2007 Plaintiff filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3),

alleging various employees and officials of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) violated his rights under Constitutional Amendments I, V, VIII,

and XIV. (Doc. 1). On February 19, 2008 and August 21, 2008, screening orders were issued

dismissing Defendants Villanueva, R.A. Gonzalez, Pimentel, and Sullivan. (Docs. 8, 19).

On August 7, 2009, the Court granted motions to dismiss by Defendants Tilton, Grannis,

Carrasco, and F. Gonzales. (Doc. 42). The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a motion to

Case 1:07-cv-00775-ROS Document 51 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 5
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 -

amend the complaint to restate the claims against Defendants Tilton, Grannis, Carrasco, and

F. Gonzalez. As the motion to amend will be denied, these Defendants will be terminated.

The Defendants who will remain in this action after this Order are Granillo, Snyder,

Montano, and Johnson. 

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Amend Complaint

A. Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that the Court “should freely give

leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires.” In determining whether leave to

amend is appropriate, the district court considers the presence of four factors: “bad faith,

undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and or/futility.” Griggs v. Pace American

Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). 

B. Analysis

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint will be denied because it would be futile.

Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint does not cure the grounds cited by the Court when

dismissing the claims against Defendants Tilton, Grannis, Carrasco, and F. Gonzalez. The

proposed amended complaint also contains no new legal or factual claims against the other

Defendants, and instead improperly attempts to incorporate the claims made against them in

the original Complaint by reference.

Plaintiff’s original Complaint alleges a campaign of harassment and retaliation,

conducted by Correctional Officers Grannillo, Snyder and Montano, during Plaintiff’s first

days at CCI - Tehachapi. Plaintiff alleges he was targeted because of a previous violent

confrontation between him and correctional officers at CCI - Los Angeles, where he had

previously been incarcerated, and because he is Muslim. The Complaint states that the

constitutional violations occurred between April 14, 2006 and April 21, 2006, and that

Plaintiff filed a CDR Form 602 to initiate a formal grievance on April 20, 2006. 

The Court dismissed the claims against Defendants Tilton, F. Gonzalez, Carrasco, and

Grannis because the Complaint failed to sufficiently allege causation between any actions

Case 1:07-cv-00775-ROS Document 51 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 5
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 -

by these Defendants and the constitutional violations alleged. The Court determined that

Defendants Carrasco, F. Gonzalez, and Grannis could not have known of the violations until

after they ceased, and the Complaint failed to allege any factual basis suggesting Defendant

Tilton knew of the violations. 

Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint contains no new factual allegations that

would support causation for the actions by these Defendants and the constitutional violations

he suffered. The proposed amended complaint alleges it is reasonable and probable these

Defendants knew the practices had been occurring based on numerous 602 appeals submitted

by other inmates prior to the violations allegedly committed against Plaintiff. This allegation

fails to state a claim because there is no “supervisory liability” under § 1983 based purely

on a supervisor’s knowledge that employees have committed constitutional violations;

government officials are only liable for their own misconduct. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129

S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (“In a § 1983 suit or a Bivens action—where masters do not answer

for the torts of their servants—the term ‘supervisory liability’ is a misnomer. Absent

vicarious liability, each government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable

for his or her own misconduct.”) Plaintiff fails to allege any purposeful conduct by these

Defendants that violated his constitutional rights. 

Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint also improperly incorporates Plaintiff’s

original Complaint by reference. See Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir.

1997). Because an amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter is “treated

thereafter as non-existent.” Id. Because leave to amend would thus be futile, the Motion to

Amend will be denied. 

II. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Defendants Carrasco, Gonzalez, Granillo, Grannis, Johnson, Montano, Snyder, and

Tilton filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Motion, however, seeks judgment

on Plaintiff’s “amended complaint.” Plaintiff was never given leave to file an amended

complaint, and his proposed amended complaint was never entered onto the docket. As

Case 1:07-cv-00775-ROS Document 51 Filed 06/03/10 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

discussed above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint will be denied. The Motion for

Judgment on the Pleadings is therefore moot.

III. Motion for a Protective Order

Defendants Carrasco, Gonzalez, Granillo, Grannis, Johnson, Montano, Snyder, and

Tilton filed a Motion for a Protective Order. Defendants seek an order relieving them of the

obligation to respond to discovery requests by Plaintiff until after the Court’s ruling on

Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. As discussed above, the Motion for

Judgment on the Pleadings will be denied. The Motion for a Protective Order is therefore

moot.

IV. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff filed a renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel. As was stated in the

Order denying Plaintiff’s previous request, district courts lack authority to require counsel

to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. Untied States District Court for

the Souther District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The Court has discretion to request

the voluntary assistance of counsel, but will only do so under exceptional circumstances. See

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Plaintiff fails to establish exceptional circumstances warranting this Court to request

voluntary counsel. Plaintiff repeats the arguments made in his previous motion that he

cannot afford counsel, his imprisonment will make it difficult to litigate the case, he has

limited knowledge of the law, the issues in his case are complex, and his case would be better

handled by legal counsel. The Court recognizes Plaintiff’s concerns, but also recognizes, as

noted in the previous order denying Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, that Plaintiff is in

no different position than other pro se prisoner litigants. Plaintiff again fails to show that

there are exceptional circumstances in his case that warrant appointment of counsel.

Plaintiff’s renewed motion to appoint counsel will be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 45) IS DENIED.

Defendants Tilton, F. Gonzalez, Carrasco, and Grannis are terminated.

Case 1:07-cv-00775-ROS Document 51 Filed 06/03/10 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

FURTHER ORDERED Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc.

47) IS DENIED as moot. 

FURTHER ORDERED Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order (Doc. 48) IS

DENIED as moot.

FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 49)

IS DENIED.

DATED this 3rd day of June, 2010.

Case 1:07-cv-00775-ROS Document 51 Filed 06/03/10 Page 5 of 5