(PC) Jones v. Ochoa ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JAQUICE JONES, Case No. 1:21-cv-00038-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 11 v. (ECF NO. 11) 12 VALOR OCHOA, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Jaquice Jones (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 16 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 19, 2021, the Court 17 issued a screening order. (ECF No. 8). In the screening order, the Court found “that the 18 following claims should proceed past screening: Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force 19 claim against defendants Ochoa, Perez, Avila, and Castillo; Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 20 failure to protect claim against defendant Gonzalez; and Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation 21 claim against defendants Ochoa, Perez, Avila, Castillo, and Gonzalez.” (Id. at 8). Given 22 Plaintiff’s allegations regarding loss of Good Time Credits, the Court also cited to the favorable 23 termination rule, but took no position on whether this action is barred by the favorable 24 termination rule. (Id. at n.4). 25 On February 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend. (ECF No. 11). 26 Plaintiff asks that he be allowed to remove the following statement from claims 1-5: “I have 27 been in the hole for 11 months and I lost 8 months of Good Time Credits. The 8 month[s] was 28 added on to my sentence.” (Id. at 1). Plaintiff also lodged a First Amended Complaint that 1 includes these changes. (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff states that he wants to make these changes to 2 clarify that he is not asking this Court or a jury to grant his Good Time Credits back. 3 Courts “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 15(a)(2). “[T]his policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission 5 Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Waldrip v. Hall, 548 F.3d 729, 6 732 (9th Cir. 2008). “However, liberality in granting leave to amend is subject to several 7 limitations. Those limitations include undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith by the 8 movant, futility, and undue delay.” Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 9 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also 10 Waldrip, 548 F.3d at 732. “[T]he consideration of prejudice to the opposing party [] carries the 11 greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 12 2003). 13 Given the stage of this case, and that there appears to be no prejudice in allowing the 14 amendment, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion.1 As the change Plaintiff made to his 15 complaint does not affect the analysis in the screening order regarding the cognizability of 16 Plaintiff’s claims, the Court adopts that analysis in full in this order, and will require 17 Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend is GRANTED; 20 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to file Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF 21 No. 12); 22 3. This case continues to proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force 23 claim against defendants Ochoa, Perez, Avila, and Castillo; Plaintiff’s Eighth 24 Amendment failure to protect claim against defendant Gonzalez; and Plaintiff’s 25 First Amendment retaliation claim against defendants Ochoa, Perez, Avila, 26 Castillo, and Gonzalez; and 27 28 1 While the Court is granting Plaintiff’s motion to amend, the Court is not taking a position on whether this action is barred by the favorable termination rule. eee OE IOS IE OI III EE EOD 1 4. Defendants will be required to respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ February 3, 2021 Fahey — 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28