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.

Caruso v. Solorio

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 13, 2019

GINA CARUSO, Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER G. SOLORIO, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT TO INCLUDE RETALIATION AND DUE PROCESS CLAIMS (ECF NO. 175)

         Gina Caruso (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         On September 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Supplement to Include Retaliation and Due Process Claims. (ECF No. 175). Plaintiff seeks to add claims related to her allegedly illegal transfer in March 2019 from the California Institution for Women (“CIW”) to the Central California Women's Facility (“CCWF”) for: “(1) retaliation for enforcing her constitutional right of access to the courts, in violation of the First Amendment; and (2) [a] due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment for transferring Ms. Caruso in violation of Title 15 regulations and pursuant to an underground regulation.” (Id. at 2).

         Plaintiff's proposed supplemental claims would be brought against defendants not currently in this lawsuit, namely Molly Hill, the Warden of CIW, and Ralph Diaz, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). The current defendants have filed an opposition to the Motion. (ECF No. 181). The Court held a hearing on the motion on November 1, 2019. (ECF No. 191). Plaintiff's counsel Jenny Huang and Defendants' Counsel Derrek Lee were telephonically present.

         For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff filed her first complaint in this action on May 22, 2015. (ECF No. 1). After several amendments and screening orders, this Court found cognizable claims against Defendants Ingram, Martinez, Lopez and Solario for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. (ECF Nos. 45 & 53). These claims stem from a July 22, 2013 search of Plaintiff and her cell while Plaintiff was incarcerated at CCWF.

         After multiple extensions of the schedule, trial is set before District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on June 16, 2020. (ECF No. 141).

         Plaintiff now moves to file a supplemental complaint for retaliation and violation of due process. (ECF No. 175). That supplemental complaint alleges in part:

After MS. CARUSO filed this action, she was transferred to the California Institution for Women (“CIW”) where she was housed from on or around October 15, 2015 until March 14, 2019. During the course of litigation in this case, CIW repeatedly denied MS. CARUSO access to the courts and to her attorney. In response, MS. CARUSO encouraged this Court to impose sanctions against CIW for violating her First Amendment right of access to the courts. On March 14, 2019, in retaliation for enforcing her constitutional rights, CIW transferred MS. CARUSO to CCWF in violation of prison regulations and pursuant to an underground regulation. Since March 14, 2019, MS. CARUSO has been confined at CCWF in Administrative Segregation (“Ad Seg”) to protect her from her documents and validated enemy concerns at CCWF. For the past six months, due to her Ad Seg status at CCWF, MS. CARUSO has been unable to have personal visits or phone communication with her family, who reside in Southern California.

(ECF No. 175, at p. 5).

         II. Legal Standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) provides for supplemental pleadings as follows: On motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented. The court may permit supplementation even though the original pleading is defective in stating a claim or defense. The court may order that the opposing party plead to the supplemental pleading within a specified time.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d).

         The Ninth Circuit has provided the following guidance in ruling on ...


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.