United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND
Troy,
L. Nunley, United States District Judge.
This
matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff Melinda
Beech's (“Plaintiff”) renewed Motion for
Leave to Amend her Complaint. (ECF No. 49.) The Court
previously denied without prejudice Plaintiff's Motion
for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 41), on the ground that Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 16, which
governs amendment to a complaint once a court has issued a
pretrial scheduling order, was not addressed in
Plaintiff's motion. (ECF No. 48.) Defendant San Joaquin
County (“County”) filed an Opposition to the
present Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 50), and Plaintiff
replied (ECF No. 51). For the reasons discussed below, the
Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion without prejudice.
I.
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff
alleges she sustained injuries as a result of the excessive
force of three Stockton police officers during an arrest, and
further alleges Defendants failed to thereafter treat some of
her claimed injuries. (ECF No. 49 ¶¶ 11-14.)
Plaintiff alleges she suffered four breaks to her clavicle
bone during the arrest and that she reported the injuries to
staff at the San Joaquin County Jail, but she was not treated
until after she was released. (Id. at ¶¶
15-20.) More specifically, she alleges she spoke to one
Sheriff's deputy about her broken clavicle, and that the
deputy acknowledged the injury but denied her treatment.
(Id.) Plaintiff also alleges she suffered gouges in
her leg and arm from a piece of metal sticking out of the
police car, but that these injuries were properly treated at
the time. (ECF No. 20 ¶¶ 12-13.) Plaintiff filed
the present lawsuit initially against the County, the City of
Stockton (“City”), and unnamed “Doe”
defendants 1-50. (ECF No. 1 at 1.)
On
October 18, 2015, Plaintiff moved to amend her Complaint to
add the names of three Stockton Police officers, stating she
learned the identity of the officers during the course of
discovery. (ECF No. 14 at 2.) The County and then-defendant
City[1]
filed statements of non-opposition, and the Court granted
Plaintiff's motion. (ECF Nos. 15, 16, 19.)
The
Court later issued a pretrial scheduling order which provided
in part that no joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings
would be permitted without leave of court for good cause.
(ECF No. 35 at 1.) Plaintiff objected, arguing she had not
been allowed an opportunity to learn the identity of the San
Joaquin Sheriff's deputy who allegedly denied her medical
care in violation of her constitutional rights. (ECF No. 36
at 1-2.) The Court overruled Plaintiff's objection,
noting that federal courts do not recognize Doe defendants
and explaining that Plaintiff must move to amend for good
cause if and when she learned the deputy's identity. (ECF
No. 37.) The Court added that this procedure protects
non-parties who had no awareness of a case that had then been
pending for over three years. (Id.)
Plaintiff
thereafter moved to amend her Complaint under Rule 15 to
substitute several San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office
employees for the previously unnamed Doe defendants. (ECF No.
41.) Plaintiff stated she had just identified the employees
through recently provided disclosures. (Id. at 1-2.)
The Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Amend without
prejudice on the basis that Plaintiff did not address Rule 16
in her motion. (ECF No. 48 at 4.) Since the Court had issued
a pretrial scheduling order, Rule 16 governed amendment to
the Complaint. (Id. at 4.)
By way
of the present motion, Plaintiff again seeks to amend her
Complaint to add as defendants seven San Joaquin County
Sheriff's Office employees. Specifically, Plaintiff
asserts that she now knows the identity of the seven officers
present when she was denied medical care. She therefore seeks
to add these named individuals and to allege that “all
of the San Joaquin Sheriff's Office Employees who are
named as defendants were present and aware of the
Plaintiff's injury” and that these same
Sheriff's Office employees were “present and
aware” of one officer's “statement made to
the Plaintiff, regarding her injury.”[2] (ECF No. 49-1 at
4.) Plaintiff still does not know, however, which of the
seven officers actually spoke to her. Additionally, while the
allegations against the single speaking officer (as a Doe
defendant) are present in Plaintiff's operative First
Amended Complaint, the “present and aware”
allegations are wholly new to the proposed Second Amended
Complaint.
II.
Standard of Law
Granting
or denying leave to amend a complaint rests in the sound
discretion of the trial court. Swanson v. United States
Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996). When a
court issues a pretrial scheduling order that establishes a
timetable to amend the complaint, Rule 16 governs any
amendments to the complaint. Coleman v. Quaker Oats
Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). To allow for
amendment under Rule 16, a plaintiff must show good cause for
not having amended the complaint before the time specified in
the pretrial scheduling order. Id. The good cause
standard primarily considers the diligence of the party
seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,
Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).
“Moreover, carelessness is not compatible with a
finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of
relief.” Id. The focus of the inquiry is on
the reasons why the moving party seeks to modify the
complaint. Id. If the moving party was not diligent,
then good cause cannot be shown and the inquiry should end.
Id.
Even if
the good cause standard is met under Rule 16(b), the Court
has the discretion to deny amendment under Rule 15(a).
Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610. Under Rule 15(a)(2),
“a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing
party's written consent or the court's leave, ”
and the “court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.” The Ninth Circuit has considered five
factors in determining whether leave to amend should be
given: “(1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice
to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment; and (5)
whether plaintiff has previously amended his
complaint.” In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas
Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 738 (9th Cir. 2013)
(citing Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d
367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990)). “[T]he consideration of
prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest
weight.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon,
Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).
III.
Analysis
Because
the proposed “present and aware” claims against
the six San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office employees are
new and different from the claim asserted against the single
Sheriff's deputy who allegedly made statements to
Plaintiff denying her medical care, the Court will address
these two issues separately.
A.
Leave to Amend to Add New Allegations Against Seven San
Joaquin ...