Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01259/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01259-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bob Ashworth
Defendant
Tom Becker
Defendant
Joe Brock
Defendant
Ken Brown
Defendant
Mike Cook
Defendant
County of El Dorado
Defendant
Jeff Dreyer
Defendant
Howard Jenks
Defendant
Brian Keefe
Defendant
Glen Klages
Defendant
Joe Lenseigne
Defendant
Tom Murdock
Defendant
Jeff Neiman
Defendant
John Nolan
Defendant
Artemis Papadakis
Defendant
Ray Rodriguez
Defendant
Geoffrey A. Schafer
Plaintiff
Mike Sylvestri
Defendant
Gordon Taylor
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEOFFREY A. SCHAFER, No. 2:06-cv-1259-MCE-DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

EL DORADO COUNTY,

BOB ASHWORTH, an Individual,

and, COUNTY OF EL DORADO,

DOES 1 THROUGH 20.

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Through the present action, Plaintiff Geoffrey A. Schafer

(“Plaintiff”) alleges that Bob Ashworth, El Dorado County and

Does 1-20 (collectively “Defendants”) violated his civil rights

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while executing a valid search warrant on

Plaintiff’s home.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend

the Complaint to replace the fictitious Doe defendants with

sixteen named defendants from the United States Drug Enforcement

Agency, the California Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, 

Case 2:06-cv-01259-MCE -DAD Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 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

27

28

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h).

2

and the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office. The newly named 1

defendants are: Joe Brock, Brian Keefe, Glen Klages, Joe

Lenseigne, Jeff Neiman, John Nolan, Artemis Papadakis, Ray

Rodriguez, Gordon Taylor, Mike Cook, Jeff Dreyer, Howard Jenks,

Tom Murdock, Mike Sylvestri, Tom Becker, and Ken Brown

(collectively “newly-named Defendants”). For the reasons set

forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On September 28, 2001, law enforcement officers from the

United States Drug Enforcement Agency, the California Bureau of

Narcotics, and the El Dorado County Sheriff, executed a valid

search warrant on Plaintiff’s home. According to the Complaint,

both Plaintiff, then fourteen years old, and his mother

cooperated with the officers. Plaintiff contends that despite

their cooperation, the officers pointed guns at them and kept

them detained in handcuffs for approximately three hours. 

Plaintiff alleges that he was severely traumatized by these

events, and he timely commenced the present action about a year

after he turned eighteen on June 10, 2005.

Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 8, 2006, naming Does

1-20 as fictitious defendants. Plaintiff indicated that he was

ignorant of the true names of those defendants and would amend

his Complaint when he ascertained their names. 

Case 2:06-cv-01259-MCE -DAD Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 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

27

28

3

According to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, he learned the names of

the officers on May 2, 2007, after Defendants responded to

discovery requests. Plaintiff filed this Motion to Amend on

June 6, 2007, along with a proposed First Amended Complaint which

includes the newly-named Defendants as parties to this

litigation.

STANDARD

Leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so

requires.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a). Bad faith, undue delay,

prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of the amendment

are factors the court examines when ruling on a motion to amend. 

DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir.

1987). Rule 15(a) motions are granted liberally and do not

depend on whether the amendment is adding claims or parties. Id.

However, when the amendment seeks to add a new party the court

must avoid prejudice to the new party. Id.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks to replace the fictitious Doe defendants

with sixteen law enforcement officers, whose names Plaintiff

recently learned. Plaintiff had stated in his Complaint that he

was unaware of the names of the officers who conducted the raid

on Plaintiff’s home in 2001. Plaintiff was a minor at that time

and there is no indication that Plaintiff has had access to all

of these names throughout the course of this case. 

Case 2:06-cv-01259-MCE -DAD Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 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

27

28

4

Plaintiff filed the Motion to Amend soon after learning the

officers’ identities. Thus, there is no evidence of any bad

faith or undue delay on the part of the Plaintiff.

Defendant Ashworth argues that adding the parties will be

prejudicial because government attorneys will have to represent

some of the newly-named Defendants, all of the new Defendants

will likely be deposed, and Plaintiff and Mr. Ashworth will have

to be re-deposed.

These arguments put forth by Defendants are not sufficient

to warrant denying Plaintiff’s motion. The fact that additional

parties will need representation and will be deposed is not in

itself unduly prejudicial. Under the current Pretrial Scheduling

Order, the parties have over four months to take depositions and

the trial is set for more than a year away.

Defendants further argue that leave to amend should be

denied because there is no viable claim against the newly-named

Defendants. Defendants characterize Plaintiff’s allegations as

holding the officers liable merely because of their presence at

the scene. Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that the

individual defendants are liable for their affirmative acts in

violating his civil rights, not merely for their presence at the

scene. 

Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint adds seven of the

newly-named Defendants to the charge of violating 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Plaintiff also alleges that his Fourth Amendment rights

were violated by the remaining nine newly-named Defendants. 

These allegations against the newly-named Defendants mirror the

original allegations against Defendant Ashworth. 

Case 2:06-cv-01259-MCE -DAD Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 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

27

28

5

This Court has previously rejected Defendants’ arguments that the

claims have no merit. Plaintiff alleges that all of the

Defendants violated his rights by using excessive force and

needlessly detaining him for three hours, not as Defendant

Ashworth contends, by merely being present on the scene. 

Accordingly, the factors of futility, prejudice, undue delay, and

bad faith weigh in favor of the Plaintiff and the Motion to Amend

is GRANTED.

In addition to taking issue with the merits of Plaintiff’s

request to add the newly-named Defendants, Defendants contend

that Plaintiff cannot continue to maintain Does 1-20 as

fictitious defendants in his First Amended Complaint while

simultaneously including sixteen new defendants whose identity

had previously been unknown. Defendants hence object to

Plaintiff’s attempt to add new defendants rather than replace the

previously named Doe defendants.

The Court agrees that the new parties constitute the

previously named fictitious defendants. Plaintiff clearly

indicated, in the Notice of Motion to Amend, that he was amending

the Complaint to add the true names of the defendant officers

previously referred to as Doe defendants. Since Plaintiff has

now named sixteen of those Does, he can only maintain Does 17-20

as fictitious defendants in his First Amended Complaint.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01259-MCE -DAD Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 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

27

28

6

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend

is GRANTED. The amended complaint may add the sixteen law

enforcement officers and continue to name Does 17-20 as

defendants. Plaintiff is directed to file his First Amended

Complaint not later than ten (10) days following the date of this

Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01259-MCE -DAD Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 Page 6 of 6