Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03753/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03753-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
C. Barela
Defendant
S. Hatton
Defendant
C. Martella
Defendant
Ronald F. Martinez
Plaintiff
E. Medina
Defendant
R. Mojica
Defendant
W. L. Muniz
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD F. MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. L. MUNIZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03753-HSG (PR)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 

AMEND COMPLAINT; SECOND 

ORDER OF SERVICE; EXTENDING 

DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE

Re: Dkt. No. 36

INTRODUCTION

On August 19, 2014, plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), filed this

pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that SVSP officials and staff retaliated 

against him when they improperly screened or otherwise interfered with the processing of his 

prison grievances. On January 7, 2015, the Court screened the complaint and found that, liberally 

construed, it stated a cognizable First Amendment claim against SVSP defendants W.L. Muniz, C. 

Martella, E. Medina, S. Hatton, and C. Barela. Now before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for 

leave to amend the complaint to add as a defendant SVSP Appeals Coordinator R. Mojica. 

Plaintiff has submitted a proposed first amended complaint (“FAC”) with the motion. Defendants 

have filed an opposition.

DISCUSSION

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 within 21 days after serving it or, if the pleading is one to 

which a responsive pleading is required, within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written 

consent of the adverse party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) is to be 

Case 4:14-cv-03753-HSG Document 45 Filed 07/08/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

applied liberally in favor of amendments and, in general, leave shall be freely given when justice 

so requires. See Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994). There is no 

indication that plaintiff’s motion is sought in bad faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates 

undue delay. See id. Nor is there any suggestion that allowing plaintiff to file his proposed FAC

would cause defendants any undue prejudice. See id. Defendants’ arguments in opposition to the 

motion go to the merits of plaintiff’s claims against R. Mojica. These arguments are better raised 

in a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended 

complaint is GRANTED. 

In the FAC, plaintiff alleges that, in retaliation for his filing of lawsuits and inmate 

grievances, defendants W.L. Muniz, C. Martella, E. Medina, S. Hatton, C. Barela, and R. Mojica 

improperly screened out (rejected at an early stage) or otherwise interfered with the processing of 

his grievances and staff complaints. The Court has screened the FAC as required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A and finds that, liberally construed it states cognizable First Amendment retaliation claims 

against defendants.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. The Clerk 

shall FILE plaintiff’s proposed FAC. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to add R. Mojica as a 

defendant on the docket in this action.

2. Defendants W.L. Muniz, C. Martella, E. Medina, S. Hatton, and C. Barela have 

been served and have appeared in this action. Defendant R. Mojica has not been served. 

Accordingly, the Clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without 

prepayment of fees, a copy of the FAC in this matter, and a copy of this order on Appeals 

Coordinator R. Mojica at SVSP. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on plaintiff.

3. In order to give defendants adequate time to review the FAC and prepare a 

dispositive motion that addresses the claims against the newly added defendant, the Court sua 

sponte extends the deadline for defendants to file a dispositive motion. Accordingly, the briefing 

schedule for dispositive motions set out in the Court’s June 3, 2015 order is VACATED, and the 

Case 4:14-cv-03753-HSG Document 45 Filed 07/08/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

deadline for defendants to file their dispositive motion is CONTINUED to October 1, 2015. 

Plaintiff shall file any opposition to defendants’ motion within twenty-eight (28) days of the date 

the motion is filed. Defendants shall file their reply within fourteen (14) days of the date the 

opposition is filed. 

This order terminates Docket No. 36.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

7/8/2015

Case 4:14-cv-03753-HSG Document 45 Filed 07/08/15 Page 3 of 3