(PC) Rodriguez v. United States of America ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGEL RODRIGUEZ, ) Case No. 1:19-cv-00001-DAD-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. ) RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BE DENIED ) 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) [ECF No. 25] 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff Angel Rodriguez is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2674. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, filed November 14, 20 2019. Because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion to amend should be denied as futile, the Court 21 finds an opposition by Defendant is unnecessary and the Court deems the motion suitable for review. 22 Local Rule 230(l). 23 I. 24 RELEVANT BACKGROUND 25 This action is proceeding against the United States of America for assault and battery under the 26 FTCA. 27 Defendant filed an answer to the complaint on June 18, 2019. On June 19, 2019, the Court 28 issued the discovery and scheduling order. 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party=s pleading 4 once as a matter of course twenty-one days after serving, or if a response was filed, within twenty-one 5 days after service of the response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Otherwise, a party may amend only by 6 leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice 7 so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 8 Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires.’” 9 AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. 10 Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices 11 the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is 12 futile.” AmerisourceBergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 951. Relevant to the futility factor, a plaintiff may not 13 bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens 14 v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). The 15 burden to demonstrate prejudice falls upon the party opposing the amendment. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. 16 Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the 17 remaining three factors, a presumption exists under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. 18 Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). Further, undue delay 19 alone is insufficient to justify denial of a motion to amend. Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 758 (9th 20 Cir. 1999). However, “[f]utility of amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of a motion for leave to 21 amend. Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 814, 845 (9th Cir. 1995); Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, 845 F.2d 209, 22 214 (9th Cir. 1988). 23 Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to add correctional officer Ramos as a Defendant. 24 Plaintiff’s motion to amend is futile. The United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA 25 action. Kennedy v. United States Postal Service, 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998). Moreover, the 26 “FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tort actions against a federal agency, and this is so despite the 27 statutory authority of any agency to sue or to be sued in its own name.” Id. (Affirming the district 28 court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s FTCA claim as improperly brought against a person and entity not subject 1 || to the FTCA); see also Lance v. United States, 70 F.3d 1093, 1095 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The district cou 2 ||also properly dismissed Lance’s action to the extent his complaint named Does 1 through 20 ; 3 || additional defendants: the United States is the only proper defendant in an FTCA action.”). Becau: 4 || Plaintiff cannot seek liability against correctional officer Ramos under the FTCA upon which this actic 5 || proceeds, Plaintiff's motion to amend should be denied as futile. 6 Il. 7 RECOMMENDATION 8 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiffs motion to amen 9 || the complaint filed on November 12, 2019, be denied as futile. 10 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 11 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen (14) days 12 || after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections 13 || with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 14 || Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 15 || may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 16 || 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Al (ee 19 |! Dated: _ November 15, 2019 OF ; 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28