(PC) Taylor v. Lynch ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CODY RICHARD TAYLOR, No. 2:21-cv-2413 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JEFF LYNCH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, with an action 19 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s motion to amend is before the court. As discussed 20 below, plaintiff’s motion should be partially granted. 21 Plaintiff’s Complaint 22 While housed at California State Prison, Sacramento, plaintiff’s cellmate Pangborn 23 allegedly told defendants Lynch, Fredricks and Riley that Pangborn was going on an HIV 24 medication strike “to become detectable and able to infect staff and inmates.” (ECF No. 1 at 5.) 25 Pangborn “purposely cut the tips of his fingers and put his blood on the hair razors . . . in 26 numerous food items,” shared by both plaintiff and Pangborn, and also put his blood in plaintiff’s 27 heroin, while denying Pangborn had any infectious diseases when asked by plaintiff. (ECF No. 1 28 1 at 5.) Plaintiff alleges defendants Lynch, Fredricks and Riley knowingly subjected plaintiff to 2 unsafe living conditions and to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth 3 Amendment. Aside from suffering the infection of HIV, plaintiff sustained a mental health 4 breakdown, severe depression, PTSD, and anxiety. (Id.) 5 Further, plaintiff alleges that defendant Collinsworth continued telling Pangborn that 6 plaintiff was HIV positive and was filing appeals, and then attempted to get Pangborn to say on 7 the record that plaintiff was aware of Pangborn’s diagnosis prior to being housed with plaintiff. 8 Plaintiff was told by several staff that “they know about all the issues” going on, and plaintiff 9 claims that defendant Collinsworth continued to spread rumors and place plaintiff’s life in danger 10 because HIV identified inmates are prone to assaults. Plaintiff alleges that defendant 11 Collinsworth violated plaintiffs right to privacy in his medical records, and put plaintiff’s life in 12 danger because “HIV-identified inmates are prone to assaults.” (ECF No. 1 at 6.) 13 Motion to Amend 14 The Parties’ Arguments 15 Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to add a claim that defendant Collinsworth also knowingly 16 subjected plaintiff to unsafe living conditions and to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of 17 the Eighth Amendment. Pangborn started the hunger strike on June 15, 2020, and after #9 meal, 18 Collinsworth interviewed Pangborn, who stated he was going to infect inmates and staff; 19 Collinsworth failed to report the threat, stating, “That’s your decision and if you infect I’ll deal 20 with when you do it.” (ECF No. 50 at 2; 9 (Pangborn Decl.).) Plaintiff avers that he learned of 21 such information through discovery. 22 In addition, plaintiff seeks leave to add three new defendants: 23 • RN J. Carter, who interviewed Pangborn on September 30, 2020, and Pangborn 24 told Carter that he “would maliciously infect staff and inmates.” (ECF No. 50 at 25 2.) Carter did nothing to report the threat or to stop the spread of a deadly disease. 26 • Between October 2020 and January 2021, Pangborn notified CMO Dr. Babbala 27 and CEO Brizitdine about seven to eight separate times that inmates would be 28 infected. (ECF No. 50 at 3.) 1 Plaintiff states that the three proposed new defendants have been in existence from the beginning 2 – February 12, 2021, as they were included in plaintiff’s health care appeal no. 21000260. (ECF 3 No. 50 at 3.) 4 Defendants’ Opposition 5 Defendants do not oppose plaintiff’s motion to amend to add the Eighth Amendment 6 claims against defendant Collinsworth. However, defendants oppose the request to add three new 7 medical defendants at this late stage of the proceedings. Plaintiff concedes he was much earlier 8 aware of these three newly proposed defendants because plaintiff submitted health care 9 grievances against them as early as February 12, 2021, ten months before plaintiff filed the instant 10 action, and more than two years prior to now. Plaintiff failed to explain why such defendants 11 were not named in the original complaint, why he waited so long to move to add them, or why he 12 should be permitted to add them more than two years into the case, after defendants have taken 13 plaintiff’s deposition. (ECF No. 52 at 2.) Defendants object that the addition of such new 14 defendants would require the reopening of discovery and the retaking of plaintiff’s deposition, 15 which would add unnecessary financial costs to defendants. Allowing plaintiff to add three new 16 defendants at this late date would severely prejudice defendants. Because plaintiff failed to show 17 good cause, the motion to amend the new defendants should be denied. 18 Plaintiff’s Reply 19 Plaintiff did not file a reply. 20 Governing Standards 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) is to be applied liberally in favor of amendments 22 and, in general, leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. See Janicki Logging Co. v. 23 Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994) (not an abuse of discretion to deny amendment where 24 desired amendment would cause undue delay and prejudice opposing parties). However, because 25 a pretrial scheduling order has been filed in this action, resolution of this motion to amend is 26 governed by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 27 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). “Once the district court filed a pretrial scheduling 28 order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 . . . that rule’s standards controlled.” Id. 1 Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 2 consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 3 Here, on November 14, 2022, the court issued its first scheduling order. (ECF No. 35.) 4 On January 6, 2023, the discovery and scheduling order was modified (ECF No. 40), and was 5 again modified on July 10, 2023, at plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 49). Therefore, the court 6 considers the present motion under the Rule 16 standard for amendment and secondarily under 7 the standard of Rule 15(a). See Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999). 8 While amendment of pleadings is ordinarily liberally granted under Federal Rule of Civil 9 Procedure 15(a), a movant must demonstrate “good cause” to justify amendment under Federal 10 Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). Johnson, 975 F.2d at 606-07. The “good cause” standard 11 “focuses on the diligence of the party seeking amendment.” Id. at 607 (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d 12 at 609). The district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite 13 the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (internal quotation 14 marks omitted). “If the party seeking the modification was not diligent, the inquiry should end 15 and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 16 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Put simply, “good cause” means 17 scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite a party's diligence. 6A Wright, Miller & Kane, 18 Federal Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 at 231 (2d ed. 1990). In addition to a lack of diligence, 19 “prejudice to the party opposing the modification” may supply additional reasons to deny 20 modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 21 In order to demonstrate diligence, plaintiff must show whether he collaborated with the 22 court in setting a schedule; whether matters that were not, and could not have been, foreseeable at 23 the time of the scheduling conference caused the need for amendment; and whether the movant 24 was diligent in seeking amendment once the need to amend became apparent. Id. at 608 25 (citations omitted). “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no 26 reason for a grant of relief.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. However, the district court is given broad 27 discretion under Rule 16. Id. at 607. 28 //// 1 Therefore, in interpreting the “good cause” requirement under Federal Rule of Civil 2 Procedure 16(b), the court considers, primarily, “the diligence of the party seeking the 3 amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. As a secondary consideration, the court considers the 4 degree of prejudice to the opposing party. Id. 5 Discussion 6 In light of defendants’ non-opposition to plaintiff’s motion to amend to add Eighth 7 Amendment claims against defendant Collinsworth, the motion to amend should be granted as to 8 defendant Collinsworth. Although plaintiff appeared to include a “supplemental complaint” 9 within his motion to amend, plaintiff is advised that his filing is insufficient. Rather, plaintiff 10 must file an amended complaint that includes his Eighth Amendment claims against defendants 11 Lynch, Fredricks and Riley, his Fourteenth Amendment claim against defendant Collinsworth, 12 and adds his Eighth Amendment claims against defendant Collinsworth. Defendants are relieved 13 of their obligation to file a responsive pleading until the court issues its screening order. 14 As to the proposed new defendants, RN Carter, CMO Dr. Babbala and CEO Brizitdine, 15 plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause or diligence. Despite plaintiff’s awareness of such 16 individuals based on his naming them in healthcare grievances, plaintiff failed to explain his 17 failure to include them in his original complaint, and his delay in moving to amend to name them. 18 The discovery and scheduling order has been modified multiple times, yet plaintiff did not file his 19 motion to amend until shortly before the discovery deadline was to expire on September 15, 2023. 20 Adding these new defendants at this late date would require reopening discovery and require a 21 second deposition of plaintiff. The undersigned finds that plaintiff was not diligent and has not 22 shown good cause to include such new defendants at this late stage of the proceedings. In 23 addition, allowing such amendment would also prejudice the defendants. Therefore, it is 24 recommended that plaintiff’s motion to amend to add the three new medical defendants be 25 denied. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign 27 a district judge to this case. 28 //// ] Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF No. 50) be 2 || partially granted, as follows: 3 1. Plaintiff's motion to amend to add Eighth Amendment claims against defendant 4 || Collinsworth be granted; 5 2. Plaintiff's motion to amend to add new medical defendants RN Carter, CMO Dr. 6 | Babbala and CEO Brizitdine be denied; and 7 3. Within thirty days from the date of any district court order adopting these findings and 8 || recommendations, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint as set forth above. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 11 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 13 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 14 | objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 15 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 16 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 || Dated: September 5, 2023 i Aectl Aharon 19 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 | Aayl2413.mta 22 23 24 25 26 27 28