Barrios v. Torres

1

FRANKLIN BARRIOS, Plaintiff, v. TORRES, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-01234-ADA-CDB (PC)

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 28, 2023

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. 25)

Franklin Barrios is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action with the filing of his original complaint on September 1, 2020. (Doc. 1.)

In its First Screening Order issued April 29, 2021, the Court determined Plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable claim upon which relief could be granted. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff was given 21 days within which to file a first amended complaint. (Id. at 6-7.)

Following the Court's grant of Plaintiff's requests for extensions of time, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on September 7, 2021. (Doc. 16.)

On October 6, 2022, the Court issued its Order of Reassignment reassigning this action to the undersigned as magistrate judge. (Doc. 20.)

On January 17, 2023, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations, to dismiss Defendant Newsom and to dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint, except for its access to courts claim seeking damages against Defendant Torres in her individual capacity, and the access to courts claim seeking injunctive relief against Defendant Diaz in his official capacity. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff was advised that written objections to the findings and recommendations must be filed no later than 14 days following service of the findings. (Id. at 7-8.) No objections were filed.

On February 21, 2023, District Judge Ana de Alba issued an Order adopting the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 22.) Defendant Newsom was dismissed from the action, and Plaintiff's case was to proceed on his access to courts claim seeking damages against Defendant Torres in her individual capacity, and his access to courts claim seeking injunctive relief against Defendant Diaz in his official capacity. (Id. at 2.)

On February 24, 2023, the Court issued its Order Finding Service Appropriate. (Doc. 23.) Specifically, service was to be effected as to Defendants Torres and Diaz via the Court's e-service pilot program. (Id. at 1-2.) Certain procedures and deadlines are outlined in the order concerning service. (Id. at 2-4.)

On February 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Leave to File An Amended Complaint.” (Doc. 25.) The second amended complaint was lodged that same date. (Doc. 26.)

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff's Motion

In his single-page motion, Plaintiff requests leave to file an amended complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, “in order to clarify and comprehensively plead his claims for relief based on the original set of operative facts.” (Doc. 25.) He states he “has received assistance from an inmate who has assisted him in the creation of the SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT.” (Id.) Further, Plaintiff states that “[s]ince the previous filing of the FIRST AMENDED CMPLAINT and his receipt of the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff has become aware of deficiencies in his FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT which have been corrected in the SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT attached hereto.” (Id.)

Plaintiff's Proposed Second Amended Complaint

A review of the proposed second amended complaint reveals Plaintiff seeks to add another claim and additional defendants, and to assert additional facts concerning a previously asserted access to courts claim. (See Doc. 26.)

In his first amended complaint, Plaintiff asserted a single cause of action against named Defendants Torres and Diaz for violations of his First Amendment rights concerning his access to courts.^[1] (See Doc. 16.) Now, Plaintiff seeks to assert a second cause of action arising under California state law, and to add unidentified “CDCR staff members” as Does 1 through 10 as Plaintiff asserts additional facts concerning his First Amendment access to courts claim. (Doc. 26 at 6.) It is clear from the factual allegations asserted in the proposed second amended complaint, concerning Plaintiff's access to courts claim, that the unknown Doe Defendants are employed at CDCR facilities other than the California Correctional Institution (CCI) where Defendant Torres is employed and where Plaintiff is presently housed, and where he was housed when he filed his original complaint. (Doc. 26 at 6-8.) Specifically, Plaintiff indicates Does 1 through 4 are law library staff employed at Avenal State Prison in 2016 (id. at 6-7) and Does 5 through 8 are law library staff employed at Tehachapi State Prison in 2017 (id. at 7).

Applicable Legal Standards

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states:

(a) Amendments Before Trial.

(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within:

(A) 21 days after serving it, or

(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.

(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.

(3) Time to Respond. Unless the court orders otherwise, any required response to an amended pleading must be made within the time remaining to respond to the original pleading or within 14 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever is later.

Rule 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part:

(a) Persons Who May Join or Be Joined.

(2) Defendants. Persons--as well as a vessel, cargo, or other property subject to admiralty process in rem--may be joined in one action as defendants if:

(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and

(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.

Leave to amend a pleading “is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court,” Pisciotta v. Teledyne Indus. Inc., 91 F.3d 1326, 1331 (9th Cir. 1996), and “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). In exercising its discretion, a court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities .... Accordingly, Rule 15's policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal quotation marks & citations omitted).

Rule 15 is construed less liberally when new parties are proposed. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Nevada Power Co., 950 F.2d 1429, 1432 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Amendments seeking to add claims are to be granted more freely than amendments adding parties”) (citing Martell v. Trilogy Ltd., 872 F.2d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1989)). In evaluating a proposed amendment to add parties, a court also considers the requirements of Rule 20. See Desert Empire Bank v. Insurance Co. of N. America, 623 F.2d 1371, 1374 (9th Cir. 1980) (a plaintiffs petition to amend pleadings to add a defendant brings into consideration Rules 15 and 20); Denham v. Aranda, No. 09-cv-1505, 2012 WL 3561988, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2012) (denying plaintiff leave to amend to add claims and parties because adding the claims would violate Rule 20); Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. of America v. Dunmore, No. CIV S-07-2493 LKK/DAD, 2010 WL 2546070, at *4-7 (E.D. Cal. June 23, 2010) (analyzing a motion to amend a complaint to add new parties under both Rule 15 and Rule 20).

Rule 20(a) imposes two requirements for permissive joinder: “(1) a right to relief must be asserted against each defendant relating to or arising out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences, and (2) some question of law or fact common to all parties must arise in the action.” Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1296 (9th Cir. 2000); 7 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1653 (3d ed.) (Rule 20(a) “imposes two specific requisites to the joinder of parties.... Both of these requirements must be satisfied in order to sustain party joinder under Rule 20(a)”). If these threshold requirements are met, the court must then consider other relevant factors to determine whether joinder comports with principles of fundamental fairness. These factors are similar to those for Rule 15 - possible prejudice to a party and the motive of the party seeking joinder. See Coleman, 232 F.3d at 1296 (“[A] district court must examine whether permissive joinder would ‘comport with the principles of fundamental fairness' or would result in prejudice to either side”); see also Desert Empire Bank, 623 F.2d at 1375 (“[W]hen making a decision whether to allow the permissive joinder of a party, a court should consider such factors as the possible prejudice that may result to any of the parties in the litigation, ... the motive [of] the moving party ..., [and] the closeness of the relationship between the new and the old parties”).

Analysis

The Court must analyze whether Plaintiff's motion, and the proposed second amended complaint, meet the requirements of Rules 15 and 20 for adding both a new claim and new defendants.

Rule 15: Leave to Amend

The Court finds good cause to grant in part Plaintiff's motion to amend. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). In the proposed second amended complaint, Plaintiff's first cause of action asserting First Amendment violations regarding his access to courts-specifically the...