Wilson v. Unknown Oceanside Police Officers

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TEDDY LEROY WILSON, Case No.: 23-cv-270-TWR-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING IN PART 14 UNKNOWN OCEANSIDE POLICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 15 OFFICERS, et al., LEAVE TO AMEND Defendants. and 16 17 (2) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 18 COMPLAINT 19 [Dkt. No. 9] 20 21 Plaintiff Teddy Leroy Wilson (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in this action 22 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging defendants violated his rights under the United 23 States Constitution. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion and Request for Leave to 24 Amend [the] Complaint to Submit Documents in Support of Complaint and Claims.” Dkt. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 No. 9. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART. 2 Plaintiff must file a First Amended Complaint as described in this Order by not later than 3 September 22, 2023. 4 I. 5 BACKGROUND 6 On February 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint against “Unknown Oceanside Police 7 Officers,” “Unknown Tr[i-]City Hospital Staff,” “Unknown Oceanside Fire Department 8 Staff,” and “Unknown Trainers and Supervisors.” See Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff’s allegations 9 relate to his arrest while he was hiding in a women’s restroom at the Oceanside Transit 10 Station. Id. at 5.2 Upon screening the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 11 1915A(b), the District Court determined Plaintiff had stated a plausible claim for excessive 12 force against Defendants. Dkt. No. 5 at 6. Noting service could not be effected upon 13 unknown individuals, however, the District Court directed Plaintiff to “provide enough 14 information to locate the Defendants for service of process.” Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff 15 subsequently identified Oceanside Police employees Brandt, Post, Weirich, Alarcon, 16 Laser, Lundy, Walker and Nelson. Dkt. No. 6. All but Nelson have been served and, with 17 the City of Oceanside, answered the complaint. Dkt. Nos. 12-19. 18 Plaintiff now moves to amend his complaint to “submit document(s) in support of 19 [his] complaint and claims against Defendants.” Dkt. No. 9 at 1. Attached to the motion 20 is a copy of an “Arrest/Juvenile Contact Report” from Plaintiff’s arrest, dated January 4, 21 22 23 24 1 “Generally, a motion for leave to amend the pleadings is a nondispositive matter that 25 may be ruled on by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).” Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Sup’rs, 284 F.R.D. 452, 458 (D. Ariz. 2012). A ruling on a motion 26 for leave to amend would be considered dispositive if a party is denied the opportunity to 27 assert a new claim or defense (e.g., when the ruling is with prejudice). See id.

28 1 2023. Id. at 3. Plaintiff asks the Court to “accept his motion to submit . . . the report as 2 a[n] admission . . . [of] overexcessive force by Oceanside Police officers.” Id. at 2. 3 II. 4 LEGAL STANDARDS 5 Federal Rule of Civil Rule 15(a)(2) directs the Court to “freely give leave [to amend 6 a pleading] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “In exercising its 7 discretion” whether to allow amendment, the Court “must be guided by the underlying 8 purpose of Rule 15 – to facilitate decision on the merits rather than on the pleadings or 9 technicalities.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).3 10 Thus, while leave to amend is not guaranteed, it “should be granted with extreme 11 liberality.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court should 12 permit a party to amend its pleadings “unless [the] amendment would cause prejudice to 13 the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue delay.” Yakama Indian 14 Nation v. State of Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, 176 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 1999); see also 15 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “[T]he nonmoving party bears the burden of 16 demonstrating why leave to amend should not be granted.” Genentech, Inc. v. Abbott 17 Lab’ys, 127 F.R.D. 529, 530-31 (N.D. Cal. 1989). 18 III. 19 DISCUSSION 20 The Court begins with the “presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave 21 to amend.” Eminence Cap. LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) 22 (emphasis in original). Here, Plaintiff has submitted a document directly relevant to his 23 claims, and if there are facts contained in the arrest report Plaintiff wants to add to his 24 complaint, the Court finds he should not be prohibited from doing so. Defendants argue 25 any such additional facts “only add[] unnecessary surplusage” to the existing allegations, 26 27 3 All citations, internal quotation marks, and subsequent history are omitted unless 28 1 Dkt. No. 22 at 3, but it is well settled that “a plaintiff is the master of his complaint.” 2 Newtok Vill. v. Patrick, 21 F.4th 608, 616 (9th Cir. 2021). The Court is not persuaded 3 Plaintiff’s pleading of additional facts based on the arrest report, or attaching the report to 4 the complaint, would violate the mandate that allegations be stated concisely. Cf. Dkt. No. 5 22 at 3 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). The Court is also mindful it cannot demand precision 6 from a pro se litigant’s pleadings, and that leave to amend “should be granted more liberally 7 to pro se plaintiffs.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 861 (9th Cir. 2003). Nor are there 8 facts in the record to support a finding of bad faith, undue delay or futility with respect to 9 Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to 10 amend his complaint to state additional facts based on the arrest report. 11 However, Defendants also assert that through his motion, Plaintiff “requests the 12 [C]ourt to make a legal determination regarding an important piece of evidence in this 13 litigation” without providing Defendants an opportunity to be heard. Dkt. No. 22 at 4. The 14 Court agrees. Plaintiff’s request that the Court “accept” the arrest report, or any facts 15 contained in it, as an “admission” of his allegations, Dkt. No. 9 at 2, is improper. To the 16 extent Plaintiff’s motion can be construed as a request that certain facts be deemed 17 admitted, the request is DENIED. Plaintiff is cautioned that allegations in the operative 18 complaint, and any subsequent complaint, are – by definition – unproven. Plaintiff’s 19 claims remain subject to proof in the form of evidence which Plaintiff must develop 20 through discovery. 21 Furthermore, although the Court has granted Plaintiff leave to plead additional facts 22 in support of his claims, he cannot amend his complaint by supplementation. Because an 23 “amended complaint supersedes the original,” Plaintiff must file a First Amended 24 Complaint without reference to any previous pleading. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 25 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012); CivLR 15.1 (requiring “[e]very pleading to which 26 amendment is permitted . . . must be complete in itself without reference to the superseded 27 pleading.”). Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint must also comply with Federal Rule of 28 Civil Procedure 8 in all respects, meaning “each claim and the involvement of each 1 defendant must be alleged; . . . [and] must include a short and plain statement of the grounds 2 || for the court’s jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 3 entitled to relief, and a demand for the relief sought.” Turley v. Lezano, No. 3:22-CV- 4 || 1719-GPC-DDL, 2023 WL 3727939, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 30, 2023). 5 To be clear, Plaintiff must complete a new prisoner civil rights complaint on the 6 || Court’s form. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint: (1) must name all current Defendants, 7 || including the “Unknown Oceanside Police Officers,” “Unknown Tri City Hospital Staff,” 8 “Unknown Oceanside Fire and Paramedics,” and “Unknown Oceanside Police Supervisors 9 Trainers” whose identities are not yet known; (2) must not name any additional 10 || Defendants; (3) must reallege Plaintiff's excessive force claims as stated in his original 11 ||complaint; and (4) must not add any other claims. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 12 || must bear the docket number 3:23-cv-00270-TWR-DDL and must be clearly labeled “First 13 Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff is advised that any claims not realleged in the First 14 || Amended Complaint may be considered waived. See Lacey, 693 F.3d at 928. 15 IV. 16 CONCLUSION 17 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to amend [Dkt. No. 9] is GRANTED 18 || IN PART. By not later than September 22, 2023, Plaintiff must file a First Amended 19 ||Complaint consistent with the instructions above. If Plaintiff fails to timely file a First 20 || Amended Complaint, Plaintiff's original complaint [Dkt. No. 1], with the addition of the 21 |/named Defendants as stated in the Court’s May 24, 2023, Order [Dkt. No. 7], will remain 22 operative pleading. 23 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: August 21, 2023 _—_— 25 Tb hohe 7 United States Magistrate Judge 28