(PC) Munoz v. Toor ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES MUNOZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-01201-JLT-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 13 v. TO AMEND COMPLAINT 14 KIRAN TOOR, M.D., FOURTEEN DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 24) 16 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, filed on 20 December 14, 2023.1 (Doc. No. 24, “Motion to Amend”). For the reasons stated below, the 21 undersigned and recommends the Motion to Amend be denied. 22 BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this 24 action by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). On March 6, 25 2023, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s Complaint, finding the Complaint failed to state a 26 claim, noting the claims against multiple medical providers were unrelated and improperly joined. 27 1 The undersigned will address Plaintiff’s construed Motion for Extension of Time to file objections to the 28 F&R to dismiss the case (Doc. No. 23) by separate order. 1 (Doc. No. 9 at 4-5). On June 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 17, 2 “FAC”). On September 29, 2023, the undersigned screened the FAC and found that it failed to 3 state a claim and that the claims were again unrelated and improperly joined. (See Doc. No. 21). 4 On November 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 22, “SAC”). 5 On December 1, 2023, the undersigned screened the SAC and issued a Findings and 6 Recommendation to dismiss the case, finding that the SAC failed to state any cognizable claim 7 and that further leave to amend would be futile. (See Doc. No. 23). On December 14, 2023, 8 Plaintiff filed the present Motion for Leave to Amend. (Doc. No. 24). In it, Plaintiff requests a 9 10-week extension of time “to comply with prior medical appointment and file an Opposition to 10 the Defendant [sic] Motion to Dismiss.” (Id. at 1). Plaintiff notes that “[s]ince the filing of the 11 Complaint [he] has been scheduled to attend numerous medical appointments and procedures. 12 [He] did not receive the document from the Court until December 7, 2023.” (Id.). 13 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 14 Motion to Amend 15 Under Rule 15, a party “may amend its filing once as a matter of course . . . .” Fed. R. 16 Civ. P. 15(a)(1). For subsequent amendments, “a party may amend its pleading only with the 17 opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when 18 justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, leave to amend generally is inappropriate 19 where the plaintiff has not indicated how it would make the complaint viable, either by 20 submitting a proposed amendment or indicating somewhere in its court filings what an amended 21 complaint would have contained. Wolgin v. Simon, 722 F.2d 389, 394–95 (8th Cir. 1983). 22 Given that Plaintiff already filed a SAC, the undersigned construes Plaintiff as requesting 23 to file a third amended complaint (“TAC”). Plaintiff does not provide a copy of his proposed 24 third amended complaint and does not provide any explanation as to how his proposed 25 amendments would cure the deficiencies of either his prior complaint. He also mistakenly refers 26 to a “Motion to Dismiss” which has not been filed. 27 In recommending dismissal of his case, the undersigned found that Plaintiff’s SAC failed 28 to allege a cognizable deliberate medical indifference claim against Defendant Toor. (Id. at 5-9). 1 The SAC asserts that at three different appointments in 2019, Defendant Toor, a physician at 2 Valley State Prison, failed to provide Plaintiff with medical treatment to address his serious 3 medical needs. (See Doc. No. 22 at 3-5). However, the undersigned found that, as to the July and 4 August 2019 appointment, the SAC failed to plead any facts indicating what treatment Defendant 5 Toor provided or failed to provide, and thus failed to support Plaintiff’s deliberate medical 6 indifference claim. (Doc. No. 23 at 6-8). As to the October 2019 appointment, the undersigned 7 found that Plaintiff failed to allege facts showing a causal connection between Defendant Toor’s 8 actions or inactions and Plaintiff’s injury. (Id. at 8-10). Absent an explanation from Plaintiff that 9 amending could remedy these serious deficiencies, the undersigned finds it would be futile and a 10 waste of judicial resources to permit Plaintiff to amend the SAC at this stage. Saul v. United 11 States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991) (A district court can deny leave “where the amendment 12 would be futile . . . or where the amended complaint would be subject to dismissal”). Because 13 Plaintiff has not articulated why amending the complaint would remedy the deficiencies of his 14 three prior filings, nor attached a proposed amended complaint permitting the Court to evaluate 15 the viability of his amendments, the undersigned recommends denying Plaintiff’s Motion to 16 Amend. See Wolgin, 722 F.2d at 394-95. 17 Nonetheless, the undersigned liberally construed the Motion to Amend (Doc. No. 24) to 18 incorporate a motion for extension of time to file objections to the pending Findings and 19 Recommendation issued on December 1, 2023, and granted Plaintiff an extension of time by 20 separate order. 21 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: 22 The district court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. (Doc. No. 24). 23 NOTICE TO PARTIES 24 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 26 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written 27 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 28 Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 1 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 2 | 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 4 Dated: December 19, 2023 ooo. Zh. fared Hack 5 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28