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.

Derek J. Bloodworth v. Jose Rocamorra

April 19, 2012

DEREK J. BLOODWORTH,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOSE ROCAMORRA, M.D., ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [Docket Nos. 42, 43, 45, 46, 91, 99, 102, 106]

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Defendants Narayana Gunda, M.D., City of El Centro and County of Imperial, Imperial County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Ray Loera filed oppositions to the motion. Plaintiff did not file a reply. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion.

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Derek J. Bloodworth is a former pretrial detainee of the Imperial County Jail ("ICJ"). (First Am. Compl. ("FAC") ¶ 31.) While he was in custody, he experienced difficulty breathing, and complained to prison medical personnel. (Id.) Dissatisfied with their response, Plaintiff complained to a guard, who took Plaintiff to the medical unit where he received an EKG. (Id. ¶33.) From the medical unit, Plaintiff was rushed to the emergency room at Pioneer Memorial Hospital ("PMH), where he was diagnosed with "Congestive Heart Failure, cardiomegaly and pulmonary congestion, edema, nonsustained life-threatening recurrent Ventricular Tachycardia, abnormal EKG and Atrial fibrillation." (Id. ¶ 36.)

Plaintiff was subsequently returned to the custody of the ICJ, where he was placed in the medical unit. (Id. ¶ 104.) Plaintiff thereafter suffered a stroke. (Id. ¶ 113.) He was rushed to El Centro Regional Medical Center ("ECRMC") for treatment, after which he was returned to ICJ and then transferred to Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("Donovan"), and later released.

After his release, Plaintiff was examined by Jose Rocamorra, M.D., who had treated Plaintiff while he was at PMH. Dr. Rocamorra recommended that Plaintiff go to Sharp Memorial Hospital ("SMH") for treatment, which he did. Upon presentation at SMH, Plaintiff was immediately sent for surgery, during which an angiogram was performed and a cardioverter defibrillator was implanted in Plaintiff's heart. (Id. ¶¶ 183-84.)

On June 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed the present case against Defendants Rocamorra, Carmen Velasquez, M.D., Prabhdeep Singh, M.D., Narayana Gunda, M.D., the Imperial County Sheriff's Office, ICJ, Nurse Robles, PMH, ECRMC, the Chief Medical Officer at Donovan, and other unnamed individuals. In his original Complaint, Plaintiff alleged claims for negligence, violation of the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment), violation of California Government Code § 845.6 and violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.

On January 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in which he identified E. Romero as the Chief Medical Officer at Donovan. Plaintiff also amended his Complaint to allege additional claims for medical malpractice, violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, violations of California Government Code §§ 844.6(d) and 815.6, violation of California Health and Safety Code §§ 1317, et seq., violation of California Welfare and Institutions Code § 15657, negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff settled his claims against Defendants Rocamorra, Singh, Robles, PMH and Romero. The remaining Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the FAC, which are either pending or are scheduled for hearing before this Court.

After certain of those motions were submitted without opposition, Plaintiff filed the present motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.

II.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to add a new defendant, "streamline" the allegations against the remaining Defendants and adjust his theory of liability. Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion on the grounds that (1) there are pending motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, (2) Plaintiff unduly delayed seeking amendment, (3) which gives rise to a risk of undue prejudice and (4) Plaintiff's proposed amendments would be futile.

Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend a party's pleading "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In accordance with this Rule, the Supreme Court has stated, in the absence of any apparent or declared reason -- such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of ...


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.