1 –ORDER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

MICHAEL A. LUJAN, 

No. 2:14-cv-01640-MO 

 Plaintiff, 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 v. 

LINDA A. GRUENWALD, ET AL., 

 Defendants. 

MOSMAN, J., 

Plaintiff seeks to amend and supplement his complaint to include additional 

defendants and new facts. For the reasons stated below, I GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend 

the Complaint. 

BACKGROUND

 The Plaintiff, Mr. Lujan, is a prisoner brining a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff alleges various members of the prison staff denied him appropriate medical care and 

further prevented him from accessing supplies he needed, and to which he was allegedly entitled, 

to facilitate the pursuit of separate legal claims. 

Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to add five new defendants and significant 

additional facts pertaining to events that occurred after the original complaint was filed on 

October 15, 2014. Plaintiff has been attempting to amend since February 10, 2015, but I twice 

denied his requested amendments due to procedural defects. 

Case 2:14-cv-01640-MO Document 107 Filed 08/24/15 Page 1 of 4
2 –ORDER 

DISCUSSION

I. Amending the Complaint

 Rule 15(a)(2) governs leave to amend a pleading, stating that "a party may amend 

its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should 

freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. In particular, the “rule favoring 

liberality in amendments to pleadings is particularly important for the pro se litigant.” Watison v. 

Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2012). The Ninth Circuit instructs courts to analyze five 

factors in granting leave to amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, 

futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. See 

Nunes v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 2003). While the Defendants will undoubtedly 

suffer some prejudice, the balance of factors supports Plaintiff’s amendment. Below, I address 

each in turn. 

a. Bad Faith 

Defendants suggest that because Plaintiff lost his motion for a preliminary injunction on 

claims related to his amended claim, any such amendment is made in bad faith. However, denial 

of the preliminary injunction means only that Plaintiff is unlikely to win at trial, not that it is 

impossible. Nat'l City Bank, N.A. v. Prime Lending, Inc., No. CV-10-034-EFS, 2010 WL 

2854247, at *9 (E.D. Wash. July 19, 2010). “Merely because Plaintiffs possessed insufficient 

evidence at the time of the preliminary injunction hearing to show a likelihood of success on the 

merits of all of their claims does not mean the evidence does not exist and cannot be obtained 

through discovery.” Id. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to amend is not in bad faith. 

Case 2:14-cv-01640-MO Document 107 Filed 08/24/15 Page 2 of 4
3 –ORDER 

b. Undue Delay 

The lawsuit was initially filed on October 15, 2015. This motion to amend follows ten 

months later. While that amounts to a substantial period of time, many of the facts Plaintiffs 

seeks to add occurred after the original filing and so could not have been brought at the time of 

the original filing. In addition, Plaintiff has been attempting to amend since February 10, 2015, 

less than four months after his initial pleading was filed and very shortly after the additional 

alleged actions occurred. Overall, while delayed, the motion is not unduly so. 

c. Prejudice 

Defendants will suffer some prejudice if Plaintiff amends his complaint. They will likely 

need to reopen discovery and to recraft their pending motion for summary judgment. Such 

efforts require time and money. However, the prejudice to Defendants is partially mitigated as 

they have known of these claims since February and the briefing for summary judgment was 

suspended pending this motion. 

d. Futility of the Amendment 

Defendants argue the amendment is futile because the claims lack merit. Plaintiff’s 

claims against the new defendants are in two parts. Neither is futile. 

Plaintiff attempts to add one Defendant who allegedly denied envelopes and copies that 

Plaintiff needed for litigation and withheld packages that Plaintiff owned. If Plaintiff can show 

that he was indigent and that he needed the contested supplies for court filings, this claim will 

not be futile. 

 For the remaining four defendants, Plaintiff’s claim rests solely on a theory of 

supervisory liability under Section 1983. “A showing that a supervisor acted, or failed to act, in 

a manner that was deliberately indifferent to an inmate's Eighth Amendment rights is sufficient 

to demonstrate the involvement—and the liability—of that supervisor.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 

Case 2:14-cv-01640-MO Document 107 Filed 08/24/15 Page 3 of 4
4 –ORDER 

1202, 1206-07 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff alleges the four Defendants violated his constitutional 

rights when they were told of the violations of their subordinates either through informal 

conversations with Plaintiff or through a grievance process and, after being informed, did 

nothing. This would be sufficient, at this stage of the case, to bring claims that are not futile. 

It is undisputed that Plaintiff has not previously amended his complaint. The remaining 

four factors are contested. While Defendants will suffer some prejudice, Plaintiff has consistently 

tried to amend his complaint without undue delay, and the claims he is attempting to add are 

neither futile nor in bad faith. The balance of these factors show that Plaintiff’s amendment is 

proper. 

 CONCLUSION 

For the reasons given above, I GRANT plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint [84]. 

DATED this 24th day of August, 2015. 

 

/s/ Michael W. Mosman 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-01640-MO Document 107 Filed 08/24/15 Page 4 of 4