(PC) Brooks v. Smith

[7] 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 WILLIE LEE BROOKS, II, No. 2:22-CV-0062-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RAINELLE SMITH, 15 Defendant. [16] 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to [18] 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for leave to file a first 19 amended complaint. See ECF Nos. 69 and 74. Defendant opposes both motions. See ECF Nos. 20 71 and 80. Plaintiff filed a reply brief in support of his first motion. See ECF No. 81. Filed with 21 Plaintiff’s second motion and without prior leave of court is a first amended complaint. See ECF 22 No. 72. 23 Where, as here, leave of court to amend is required and sought, the Court considers 24 the following factors: (1) whether there is a reasonable relationship between the original and 25 amended pleadings; (2) whether the grant of leave to amend is in the interest of judicial economy 26 and will promote the speedy resolution of the entire controversy; (3) whether there was a delay in 27 seeking leave to amend; (4) whether the grant of leave to amend would delay a trial on the merits 28 of the original claim; and (5) whether the opposing party will be prejudiced by amendment. See 1 Jackson v. Bank of Hawai’i, 902 F.2d 1385 , 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). Leave to amend should be 2 denied where the proposed amendment is frivolous. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 3 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). 4 This case currently proceeds on Plaintiff’s original complaint as against a sole 5 defendant – Rainelle Smith – on Plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s suicidal 6 ideation. See ECF No. 1. The complaint was filed on January 10, 2022. See id. The pending 7 motions for leave to amend were first filed in August 2023. See e.g. ECF No. 69. Without prior 8 approval, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint on September 20, 2023. See ECF No. 72. 9 Plaintiff seeks leave to add two new defendants to his deliberate indifference 10 claim, as well as two new theories of liability against all defendants based on discrimination. See 11 ECF No. 72. The new defendants are identified as Lieutenant Cooper and Senior Registered 12 Nurse Davila. See id. at 1, 2. As with the operative original complaints, the facts alleged in the 13 first amended complaint relate to events occurring at Mule Creek State Prison in June and July 14 2021. Compare ECF Nos. 1, 72. 15 Having considered Plaintiff’s original complaint, the improperly filed first 16 amended complaint, Plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend, as well as Defendant’s oppositions 17 thereto, the Court finds that leave to amend should not be granted. First and foremost, the Court 18 finds that Plaintiff has made no showing as to how the balance of the factors outlined above 19 favors amendment at this time. Notably, Plaintiff’s motions are devoid of any explanation or 20 analysis. Rather, the Court must rely on the improperly filed first amended complaint and the 21 record as a whole. 22 A review of the docket reflects that Plaintiff previously filed a first amended 23 complaint, purportedly as-of-right, on October 3, 2022. See ECF No. 36. This pleading 24 contained the same factual allegations as are now asserted against Cooper and Davila, except 25 these individuals were identified as “Doe” defendants. Compare ECF Nos. 36, 72. Ultimately, 26 Plaintiff withdrew the October 3, 2022, pleading, citing “exhaustion requirements.” ECF No. 50. 27 The October 3, 2022, pleading was stricken pursuant to Plaintiff’s withdrawal. See ECF No. 51. 28 / / / 1 The improperly filed first amended complaint now before the Court is identical to 2 the October 3, 2022, pleading, save for the substitution of Cooper and Davila for previously 3 named “Doe” defendants and the addition of two new theories of liability based on 4 discrimination. Plaintiff’s pending motions for leave to amend do not explain why he withdrew 5 the October 3, 2022, pleading and waited almost an entire year to seek leave to re-file it – long 6 after the case had been scheduled and closing on the close of discovery. It is clear the underlying 7 facts were known to Plaintiff in October 2022, and Plaintiff could have amended at that time. He 8 chose not to and has not accounted for his changed stance. 9 Additionally, given that Defendant has answered, and discovery has now closed, 10 the Court finds that Defendant would be prejudiced by allowing amendment, particularly given 11 the procedural history outlined above. 12 Allowing amendment at this late stage of the proceedings would also thwart a 13 speedy resolution of this case on the merits of Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Smith. 14 Where a party files an amended complaint without the right to do so, it is properly 15 stricken by the Court. See, e.g., Hardin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 813 F. Supp. 2d 1167 , 1181 16 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (striking fourth amended complaint: “If an amended pleading cannot be made as 17 of right and is filed without leave of court or consent of the opposing party, the amended pleading 18 is a nullity and without legal effect.”); Sexton v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-0089819 TLN-AC, 2022 WL 976914 (E.D. Cal. March 31, 2022) (striking amended complaint); Guthrie v. 20 Hurwitz, Case No. 1:18-cv-00282-AWI-BAM, 2018 WL 4005261 , at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 21 2018) (striking amended complaint). The Court will do so here and reiterate that this case 22 continues to proceed on the original complaint. 23 Finally, pending resolution of a pending discovery motion, which will be 24 addressed by separate order, the Court will sua sponte vacate the deadline for filing dispositive 25 motions. Unless otherwise ordered as part of the resolution of the pending discovery motion, 26 discovery in this case remains closed as of November 20, 2023. See ECF No. 59 (discovery and 27 scheduling order). 28 / / / ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 2 1. Plaintiff's motions for leave to amend, ECF Nos. 69 and 74, are DENIED. 3 2. The first amended complaint filed on September 20, 2023, ECF No. 72 4 || (docketed as Second Amended Complaint), is STRICKEN. 5 3. The Court sua sponte VACATES the dispositive motion filing deadline 6 || pending further order. [7] 8 | Dated: January 23, 2024 Svc ? DENNIS M. COTA 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1]