Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Brown v. Deputy 1

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

October 8, 2013

ROBERT MARK BROWN, II, Plaintiff,
v.
DEPUTY #1, Deputy Sheriff; et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S VARIOUS MOTIONS TO AMEND COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 82)

GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

On August 8, 2012, plaintiff Robert Mark Brown, II ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action for violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his civil rights by using excessive force resulting in severe injuries. (ECF No. 1.)

Currently before the Court are multiple motions by Plaintiff requesting to add defendants, to extend the time in which to join other parties, amend the pleadings, or file additional pleading. (ECF Nos. 53, 57, 59, 64, 69.) Defendants Erick Villarreal and Jason Weber ("Defendants"), filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motions. (ECF No. 79.) In their opposition, Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff's request to file an amended complaint and add deputy defendants. (Id.) Defendants, however, object to Plaintiff adding the County of San Diego ("County") and Sheriff William Gore ("Gore") as defendants because Defendants believe that Plaintiff's claim against the County and Gore is based on Plaintiff being denied access to a law library. (Id.)

On June 24, 2013, Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal issued a report and recommendation, recommending Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement his Complaint by adding Sheriff William Gore and the County of San Diego, (ECF No. 64), be DENIED; Plaintiff's Motion for leave to Amend his Complaint to add Deputy Garcia, Henton, Pierson, Lawson, and Whittaker as Defendants, (ECF Nos. 53, 59, 69), be GRANTED; and Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time, (ECF No. 57), be DENIED as moot.

For the reasons set forth below, this Court: (1) ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement his Complaint by adding Sheriff William Gore and County of San Diego and therefore DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement his Complaint by adding Sheriff William Gore and County of San Diego; (2) ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff's Motions for leave to Amend his Complaint to add Deputy Garcia, Henton, Pierson, Lawson, and Whittaker as Defendants and therefore GRANTS Plaintiff's Motions for leave to Amend his Complaint to add Deputy Garcia, Henton, Pierson, Lawson, and Whittaker as Defendants; and (3) ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time and therefore DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time as moot.

BACKGROUND

On August 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his civil rights for, among other things, using excessive force resulting in severe injuries. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not know the identities of all the guards who allegedly violated his rights, so he identified them as "Deputy" in his Complaint. (Id.) After the parties engaged in discovery, Plaintiff identified the guards referenced in the Complaint and discovered the names of additional defendants that allegedly violated his civil rights. (ECF Nos. 53, 59, 64, 69.) Plaintiff has since filed various motions requesting leave to add the new defendants. (Id.) The Court ordered Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's motions. (ECF Nos. 60, 70.) On May 24, 2013, Defendants filed their Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motions to Amend. (ECF No. 79.)

A. Motions to Add Additional Deputies as Defendants

On April 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to add Deputy Lauset Garcia as a defendant in this action, identifying him as Doe Deputy No. 5 referenced in his Complaint. (ECF No. 53.) Plaintiff alleges that Deputy Garcia was "involved in the assault" against him. (Id.) On April 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to add Deputy Scott Henton and Deputy Robert Pierson as defendants in this action, identifying them as Doe Deputy No. 3 and Doe Deputy No. 5, respectively, referenced in his Complaint. (ECF No. 59.) Plaintiff does not make any factual allegations in support of this Motion. On April 30, 3013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to again add Deputy Lauset Garcia as a defendant, along with two new deputies, Michael Lawson and L. Wittaker. (ECF No. 69.) In support of this Motion, Plaintiff alleges that "[a]ll three deputys [sic] were present on the scene of the incident on May 2, 2012 and had ample [sic] opportunity to intervene in the alleged assault against [him] and did nothing to stop it." (ECF No. 69.)

B. Motion to Add Sheriff William Gore and County of San Diego as Defendants

On April 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to add Sheriff William Gore and the County of San Diego as Defendants. (ECF No. 64.) In support of this motion, Plaintiff alleges that "since this case is pending I have been denied physical access to the law library and legal research needed in order to adequately represent myself in this case, and all my grievance submitted to jail officials concerning this matter have been denied." (Id.)

C. Motion for Second Extension of Time to Join Parties, Amend Pleadings, or File Additional Pleadings

On April 3, 2013, Plaintiff also filed a motion for a second extension of time of the deadline to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings. (ECF No. 57.)

D. Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motions

On May 24, 2013, Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiff's motions. (ECF No. 79.) While Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff's request to add the deputy defendants and file an amended complaint, Defendants object to Plaintiff's request to add the County of San Diego and Gore as defendants. (Id.) Defendants believe Plaintiff wishes to add the County and Gore because Plaintiff wants to add a claim that he was denied access to the law library in violation to his civil rights. (Id.) Defendants argue that the facts which underlie Plaintiff's new claim of denial of access to a law library "do not arise out of the same operative faces as those set out in the original complaint, " and therefore Plaintiff should not be allowed to amend his complaint to include the claim.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court's role in reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the district court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report... to which objection is made, " and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge]." Id . When no objections are filed, the Court may assume the correctness of the magistrate judge's findings of fact and decide the motion on the applicable law. Campbell v. United States Dist. Court , 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974); Johnson v. Nelson , 142 F.Supp.2d 1215, 1217 (S.D. Cal. 2001). Under such circumstances, the Ninth Circuit has held that "a failure to file objections only relieves the trial court of its burden to give de novo review to factual findings; conclusions of law must still be reviewed de novo." Barilla v. Ervin , 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist. , 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)).

DISCUSSION

I. Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint to Add Sheriff William Gore and the County of San Diego

Judge Skomal recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint to Add Sheriff William Gore and the County of San Diego be denied. Neither party has filed a specific objection to the magistrate judge's findings or conclusions as they pertain to this Motion. As such, the Court assumes the correctness of the Magistrate Judge's factual findings and adopts them in full.

The Court has conducted a de novo review, independently reviewing the Report and Recommendation and all relevant papers submitted by both parties, and finds that the Report and Recommendation provides a cogent analysis of the issues presented in Plaintiff's Motion. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint to Add Sheriff William Gore and the County of San Diego in its entirety and therefore DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.

II. Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to Amend to Add Deputies as Defendants

Judge Skomal recommends that Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to Amend to Add Deputies as Defendants be granted. Neither party has filed a specific objection to the magistrate judge's findings or conclusions as they pertain to these Motions. As such, the Court assumes the correctness of the Magistrate Judge's factual findings and adopts them in full.

The Court has conducted a de novo review, independently reviewing the Report and Recommendation and all relevant papers submitted by both parties, and finds that the Report and Recommendation provides a cogent analysis of the issues presented in Plaintiff's Motions. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to Amend to Add Deputies as Defendants in its entirety and therefore GRANTS Plaintiff's Motions.

III. Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time

Judge Skomal recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time be dismissed as moot. Neither party has filed a specific objection to the magistrate judge's findings or conclusions as they pertain to this Motion. As such, the Court assumes the correctness of the Magistrate Judge's factual findings and adopts them in full.

The Court has conducted a de novo review, independently reviewing the Report and Recommendation and all relevant papers submitted by both parties, and finds that the Report and Recommendation provides a cogent analysis of the issues presented in Plaintiff's Motion. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time in its entirety and therefore DENIES Plaintiff's Motion as moot.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Judge Skomal's Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint to Add Sheriff William Gore and the County of San Diego is ADOPTED in its entirety;
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint to Add Sheriff William Gore and the County of San Diego, (ECF No. 64), is DENIED;
3. Judge Skomal's Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to Amend to Add Deputies as Defendants is ADOPTED in its entirety;
4. Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to Amend to Add Deputies as Defendants, (ECF Nos. 53, 59, 69), are GRANTED;
5. Judge Skomal's Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time is ADOPTED in its entirety; and
6. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time, (ECF No. 57), is DENIED as moot.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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