Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Espino v. City of Chula Vista

August 15, 2007

FELIX ESPINO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge

ORDER (Docs. # 57, 75, 86)

The matters before the Court are two motions to amend the Complaint (Docs. # 57 & 86) and "Plaintiff's Request for Ruling of the Court for Defendants' Failure to Comply with the Court's Order Filed on April 12, 2007" (Doc. # 75).

BACKGROUND

On December 21, 2005, Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed his Complaint, alleging that certain members of the Chula Vista Police Department violated his civil rights during the course of his arrest on May 17, 2004. (Doc. # 1.) Count One of his Complaint alleges, inter alia, "excessive force, unlawful force, and cruel and unusual punishment [in] violation of the Eighth Amendment." (Compl., Doc. # 1, at 3.) Count Two alleges a denial of "right to medical care, due process [in] violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment[s]." (Id. at 4.) On June 23, 2006, Defendant City of Chula Vista filed its Answer. (Doc. # 14.)

On August 31, 2006, Magistrate Judge Porter conducted a case management conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. (Doc. # 16.) On September 13, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Scheduling Order, which provides in part: "Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed on or before October 2, 2006." (Scheduling Order, Doc. # 16, at 1 (emphasis in original).) The Scheduling Order also provides: "The dates and times set forth herein will not be further modified except for good cause shown." (Id. at 4.)

On December 22, 2006, the seven individual Defendants filed their waiver of service. On December 26, 2006, the seven individual Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. # 23.)

On January 31, 2007, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint ("January 31, 2007 Motion for Leave") (Doc. # 40), seeking to amend the Complaint to allege for the first time that during his May 17, 2004 arrest, he sustained a back injury. Defendants opposed the January 31, 2007 Motion for Leave. (Doc. # 42.) On March 7, 2007, the Court granted Plaintiff's January 31, 2007 Motion for Leave, stating:

[A]ccording to Plaintiff, his back 'recently started to bother[] him,' and at the resultant visit to the doctor, an X-ray revealed the injury. Assuming his statements to be true, the allegation that he 'recently discovered that he sustained a serious back injury during his arrest' is sufficient to show 'good cause' for the delay. Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint. (March 7, 2007 Order, Doc. # 47, at 3.)

On April 4, 2007, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. (Doc. # 58.) The First Amended Complaint alleges that "Plaintiff sustained a serious back injury" due to Defendants' actions during on the day of his arrest (Doc. # 58 at 13), as allowed by the Court's March 7, 2007 Order. However, the First Amended Complaint also purports to add three new defendants to this action, "Officer Kalbaugh," "Officer Munch," and "Officer Ficacci." (Doc. # 58 at 1.) Plaintiff's January 31, 2007 Motion for Leave did not seek to add any new defendants, and the Court's March 7, 2007 Order did not grant leave to add any new defendants.

On April 4, 2007, the same day Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint" (Doc. # 57) ("April 4, 2007 Motion for Leave"), seeking leave to add "Officer Kalbaugh," "Officer Munch," and "Officer Ficacci" as defendants.

On April 12, 2007, the Court issued an Order stating that Defendants may file an opposition to the April 4, 2007 Motion for Leave by April 27, 2007 and Plaintiff may file a reply by May 11, 2007. (Doc. # 60.)

On May 10, 2007, Defendants filed an "Ex Parte Application . . . Extending Time to Oppose Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint" (Doc. # 65) and an opposition brief to Plaintiff's April 4, 2007 Motion for Leave (Doc. # 66).

On May 11, 2007, the Court granted Defendants' "Ex Parte Application . . . Extending Time to Oppose Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint" and ordered Plaintiff to file any reply to Defendants' opposition brief by May 25, 2007. (Doc. # 68.)

On May 17, 2007, Plaintiff filed "Plaintiff's Request for Ruling of the Court for Defendants' Failure to Comply with the Court's Order Filed on April 12, 2007" (Doc. # 75), requesting the Court to grant Plaintiff's April 4, 2007 Motion for Leave based upon Defendants' late filing of the opposition brief.

On May 25, 2007, Plaintiff filed an objection to Defendants' "Ex Parte Application . . . Extending Time to Oppose Plaintiff's Motion for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.