Howard Cochran v. Mark Wardian ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HOWARD COCHRAN, No. 13-15846
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02538-RCB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MARK WARDIAN, Police Officer; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Robert C. Broomfield, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Howard Cochran appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional violations in connection with his arrest. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
amend. Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 977 (9th Cir. 2013). We may affirm
on any ground supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-
59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Denial of Cochran’s motion to amend his complaint with respect to his
excessive force claim against Wardian was not an abuse of discretion because
amendment would have been futile. See Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077
(9th Cir. 2004) (“Futility alone can justify the denial of a motion to amend.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Johnson v. Mammoth
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-09 (9th Cir. 1992) (the “good cause” standard
of Rule 16 controls after a scheduling order is established).
However, denial of Cochran’s motion to amend his complaint with respect
to his excessive force claim against Feist and Ramsey was an abuse of discretion
because Cochran should have been given an opportunity to amend this claim to
identify the proper defendants. See Crowley, 734 F.3d at 978 (abuse of discretion
to deny leave to amend where the complaint’s deficiencies could be cured by
naming the correct defendant); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.
2000) (en banc) (reversing and remanding because the district court failed to grant
prisoner leave to amend his complaint to name the correct defendants).
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in part and remand to allow Cochran
2 13-15846
an opportunity to file an amended complaint.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
3 13-15846