United States District Court, E.D. California
MICHAEL R. WARZEK, Plaintiff,
O. ONEYEJE, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BE DENIED [ECF
Michael R. Warzek is appearing pro se in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to add Defendant
Dr. Renee Kanan, filed on October 22, 2019.
action is proceeding against Defendants M. Conanan, O.
Onyeje, and Charles E. Young for deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need.
August 2, 2018, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint.
August 7, 2018, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling
January 7, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies.
Plaintiff filed an opposition on February 5, 2019, and
Defendants filed a reply and objections on February 11, 2019.
On March 12, 2019, the undersigned issued Findings and
Recommendations recommending that Defendants' motion for
summary judgment be granted, and Plaintiff's claim
relating to the denial of a medical chrono be dismissed,
without prejudice, for failure to exhaust the administrative
remedies. Plaintiff filed objections on April 15, 2019. On
July 12, 2019, the Findings and Recommendations were adopted
in full and Plaintiff's claim relating to the denial of a
medical chrono was dismissed, without prejudice.
March 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
which was lodged by the Court. However, Plaintiff did not
file a motion to amend the complaint until April 15, 2019,
along with another copy of the proposed second amended
complaint which was lodged. Defendants filed an opposition to
Plaintiff's motion to amend on May 6, 2019. On May 24,
2019, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations
recommending Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint be
denied. (ECF No. 46.) The Findings and Recommendations were
adopted in full on August 23, 2019. (ECF No. 52.)
previously stated, on October 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed the
instant motion to add Defendant Dr. Renee Kanan. Defendants
filed an opposition on October 31, 2019. Plaintiff did not
file a reply and the time to do so has expired. Local Rule
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party
may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course
twenty-one days after serving, or if a response was filed,
within twenty-one days after service of the response.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1). Otherwise, a party may amend only by
leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse
party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so
requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).
15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be
freely given when justice so requires.'”
AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465
F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)).
However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where
the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is
sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in the
litigation; or (4) is futile.” AmerisourceBergen
Corp., 465 F.3d at 951. Relevant to the futility factor,
a plaintiff may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated
parties in a single action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a), 20(a)(2);
Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011);
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
The burden to demonstrate prejudice falls upon the party
opposing the amendment. DCD Programs, Ltd. v.
Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). Absent
prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining three
factors, a presumption exists under Rule ...