1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAMONT CROSSLEY, No. 2:23-cv-3045 DJC CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DR. ARYA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 19 to

. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first 20 amended complaint filed November 14, 2024, pursuant to the mailbox rule. (ECF Nos. 31, 32 at 21 20.) On December 10, 2024, defendant Arya filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion to amend. 22 (ECF No. 35.) On December 26, 2024, plaintiff filed a reply to defendant Arya’s opposition. 23 (ECF No. 39.) For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion to amend is granted.1 24 II. BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiff filed the original complaint on December 28, 2023. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff 26

27 1 See Dillon v. Legacy Health,

, at *1 n. 2 (D. Or. Apr. 24, 2025) (magistrate judges have authority to grant motions for leave to amend because such a disposition is 28 considered non-dispositive). 1 named as defendants Dr. Arya and doe Registered Nurse (“RN”). (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff alleged that 2 on or around October 2021, plaintiff believed that plaintiff fractured his right wrist. (Id. at 2.) 3 Plaintiff filed a 7362 Medical Form complaining of pain, swelling and immobility and requesting 4 an x-ray of his right wrist (Id.) Defendant doe RN saw plaintiff at plaintiff’s cell door. (Id. at 3.) 5 After viewing plaintiff’s right wrist, defendant doe RN told plaintiff, “You will be alright,” and 6 walked away. (Id.) Defendant doe RN did not schedule plaintiff to see a doctor or for a follow- 7 up, although plaintiff’s condition was pretty much the same as reported, i.e., limited mobility, 8 swelling and pain. (Id.) Plaintiff alleged that defendant Arya provided inadequate medical care 9 for plaintiff’s right fractured wrist. (Id. at 3-5.) 10 On January 9, 2024, the Court ordered service of defendant Arya as to plaintiff Eighth 11 Amendment and state law medical malpractice claims. (ECF No. 5.) On June 12, 2024, 12 defendant Arya filed an answer. (ECF No. 21.) On June 14, 2024, this Court issued a Discovery 13 and Scheduling order setting the discovery deadline for October 11, 2024 and the dispositive 14 motion deadline for January 3, 2025. (ECF No. 22.) 15 Pursuant to the mailbox rule, on October 10, 2024, plaintiff filed a pleading titled, “First 16 Amended Complaint.” (ECF No. 27.) In the amended complaint, plaintiff stated that he sought 17 to amend his complaint to identify defendant doe RN as Jennie Pascua. (Id.) Plaintiff’s amended 18 complaint did not include plaintiff’s claims against defendants Arya and Pascua. (Id.) On 19 October 25, 2024, this Court denied plaintiff’s motion to amend because it failed to include 20 plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and state law medical malpractice claims against defendants Arya 21 and Pascua, as required by Local Rule 220. (ECF No. 29.) This Court granted plaintiff thirty 22 days to file a proposed amended complaint including all claims against defendants Arya and 23 Pascua. (Id.) 24 On November 14, 2024 plaintiff filed a motion to amend and a proposed amended 25 complaint. (ECF Nos. 31, 32.) The allegations in the amended complaint are virtually identical 26 to the allegations in the original complaint except they identify the defendant doe RN as Jennie 27 Pascua. (Id. at 32.) In the motion to amend, plaintiff states that he seeks leave to amend his 28 complaint to identify Jennie Pascua as defendant doe RN. (ECF No. 31 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges 1 that after the alleged deprivations, plaintiff moved to a different yard. (Id.) On the new yard, 2 plaintiff had no contact with defendant Pascua and did not know her name. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges 3 that he recently came into contact with defendant Pascua because defendant Pascua is working on 4 plaintiff’s new yard. (Id.) For this reason, plaintiff was able to obtain defendant Pascua’s name. 5 (Id.) Plaintiff also claims that during discovery, defendant Arya attempted to conceal the identity 6 of defendant Pascua. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff claims that defendant Arya did not provide plaintiff 7 with requested medical records that would have contained defendant Pascua’s name. (Id. at 2.) 8 Plaintiff also alleges that the prison has not allowed plaintiff to review his own medical file or 9 copy evidence for his case. (Id.) 10 On December 17, 2024, this Court granted defendant Arya’s motion to stay all pretrial 11 deadlines. (ECF No. 37.) This Court vacated the January 3, 2025 pretrial motion deadline and 12 ordered that this deadline would be reset following resolution of plaintiff’s motion to amend. 13 (Id.) 14 III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTION TO AMEND 15 A party seeking to amend a pleading after issuance of a pretrial scheduling order must first 16 show “good cause” for the amendment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) and, second, 17 if good cause is shown, the party must demonstrate that the amendment is proper under Federal 18 Rule of Civil Procedure 15. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th 19 Cir. 1992). 20 To determine if good cause exists under Rule 16, courts generally consider the diligence 21 of the party seeking the modification. See

; Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co.,

(9th Cir. 2000). Pursuant to Rule 16, “[t]he pretrial schedule may be modified ‘if it 23 cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. 24 S. Cal. Edison Co.,

(9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson,

). 25 “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might 26 supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry [under Rule 16] is upon the 27 moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Johnson,

(citation omitted). If 28 the moving party fails to show diligence, “‘the inquiry should end.’” Coleman,

1 (quoting Johnson,

). 2 “Generally, Rule 15 advises the court that leave shall be freely given when justice so 3 requires. This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, 4 Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The court 5 considers five factors in deciding a motion for leave to amend under Rule 15: (1) bad faith on the 6 part of the movant; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of 7 amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended his complaint. See In re W. 8 States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2013), aff'd sub nom. 9 Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc.,

(2015). 10 IV. ANALYSIS 11 A. Rule 16 12 For the following reasons, this Court finds that plaintiff establishes good cause pursuant to 13 Rule 16 for the proposed amended complaint. On October 10, 2024, plaintiff originally sought to 14 amend his complaint to identify Jennie Pascua as defendant doe RN, albeit one day prior to the 15 discovery deadline. After the Court dismissed the improperly filed amended complaint, plaintiff 16 filed the pending motion to amend and proposed amended complaint within the thirty days 17 granted by the Court. In the pending motion to amend, plaintiff seeks to identify the defendant 18 doe RN named in the original complaint. This Court accepts plaintiff’s explanation that he could 19 not have previously discovered the identity of the defendant doe RN because plaintiff moved 20 away from the yard where the alleged deprivations occurred. This Court also accepts plaintiff’s 21 explanation that he recently discovered the identity of the defendant doe RN because the 22 defendant doe RN, Jennie Pascua, is now working on the yard where plaintiff is currently housed. 23 This Court finds that, pursuant to Rule 16, plaintiff acted diligently in seeking to amend his 24 complaint to identify Jennie Pascua as the defendant doe RN once plaintiff discovered her 25 identity. 26 In the opposition, defendant Arya observes that in the December 4, 2024 order denying 27 plaintiff’s motion to compel, this Court noted that plaintiff did not claim that he filed a request for 28 1 an Olsen review regarding his medical records.2 (ECF No. 35 at 3.) Defendant Arya suggests 2 that plaintiff was not diligent in attempting to identify defendant doe RN’s identity because 3 plaintiff did not request an Olsen review. (Id.) For the following reasons, this Court is not 4 persuaded by this argument. As discussed in the December 4, 2024 order, plaintiff served 5 defendant Arya with a request for production of documents seeking all medical records related to 6 plaintiff’s right wrist injury. (ECF No. 33 at 1.) On September 12, 2024, defendant Arya served 7 plaintiff with an initial response to plaintiff’s request for production of documents. (Id. at 2.) On 8 October 8, 2024, defendant Arya served plaintiff with a supplemental response to the request for 9 production of documents. (Id.) Plaintiff appears to claim that defendant Pascua was not 10 identified in any of the medical records defendant gave plaintiff in response to the request for 11 production of documents. (See ECF No. 34 at 2.) This Court finds that plaintiff acted diligently 12 in attempting to identify the defendant doe RN by way of discovery rather than by way of an 13 Olsen review. 14 Plaintiff’s claim that defendant Arya concealed the identify of defendant Pascua by 15 withholding medical records sought in plaintiff’s request for production of documents is the 16 subject of the pending motion for reconsideration of the December 4, 2024 order denying 17 plaintiff’s motion to compel. As discussed in the separately issued order addressing plaintiff’s 18 motion for reconsideration, this Court finds no persuasive evidence that defendant Arya failed to 19 adequately respond to plaintiff’s request for production of documents. For these reasons, 20 plaintiff’s claim that plaintiff did not file a motion to amend sooner due to defendant Arya’s 21 misconduct during discovery is unsupported. 22 B. Rule 15 23 Although defendant Arya’s opposition addresses only prejudice and undue delay, this 24 Court addresses all five factors set forth above for determining whether leave to amend is 25 warranted under Rule 15. 26

27 2 An Olsen review is a process where an inmate submits a request to view his medical records and then prison staff will set up a time for the inmate to review his records. See Gray v. Virga, 28

, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2015). 1 1. Prejudice 2 As consideration of prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest weight, this Court 3 considers this factor first. See Eminence Capital, LLC,

. Defendant Arya argues 4 that defendant will be prejudiced if plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 5 35 at 4.) Defendant Arya observes that discovery closed on October 11, 2024 and the dispositive 6 motion deadline was January 3, 2025. (Id.) Defendant Arya argues that if plaintiff is permitted to 7 proceed on his amended complaint, litigation in this case would start over from the beginning. 8 (Id.) Defendant Arya argues that he will be required to answer the amended complaint. (Id.) 9 Defendant Arya argues that the Court will be required to set new deadlines for all parties to 10 complete discovery and file motions to compel, tasks which have already been completed by 11 defendant Arya. (Id. at 4-5.) Defendant also argues that defendant Arya is prejudiced by the 12 delay in resolution of this action if plaintiff is allowed to amend his complaint. (Id.) 13 If plaintiff’s motion to amend is granted, the Court will not reopen discovery between 14 plaintiff and defendant Arya. If plaintiff’s motion to amend is granted, the Court will reset the 15 dispositive deadline to a date after the completion of discovery between plaintiff and defendant 16 Pascua. While granting plaintiff’s motion to amend would delay resolution of this action for 17 defendant Arya, defendant Arya had notice of plaintiff’s allegations against the defendant doe RN 18 as they were raised in the original complaint. Based on these circumstances, this Court finds that 19 the prejudice to defendant Arya from allowing plaintiff to amend the complaint is minimal. 20 2. Undue Delay 21 Defendant Arya argues that plaintiff failed to act diligently in seeking to identify the 22 defendant doe RN. (Id. at 5.) Defendant Arya argues that plaintiff failed to act diligently in 23 seeking the information he desired by failing to exercise the avenues available to him, whether 24 through discovery or seeking a review of his medical records. (Id.) Defendant Arya argues that 25 plaintiff should not be rewarded for his failure to seek to leave to amend his complaint prior to the 26 end of the discovery period. (Id.) 27 As discussed above, although plaintiff’s first motion to amend was defective, plaintiff 28 filed the first motion to amend prior to the close of discovery. In addition, in the pending motion, 1 plaintiff states that he discovered the identity of the defendant doe RN after he recently came into 2 contact with her on the yard. Plaintiff’s attempt to discover the identity of defendant doe RN by 3 way of discovery, apparently unsuccessfully, rather than by way of an Olsen review does not 4 demonstrate that plaintiff was not diligent in attempting to identify the defendant doe RN. For 5 these reasons, this Court finds that plaintiff did not act with undue delay in seeking to amend his 6 complaint to identify the defendant doe RN. 7 3. Futility 8 This Court finds plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint states potentially colorable 9 Eighth Amendment and medical malpractice claims against defendant Pascua. Because 10 plaintiff’s claims against defendant Pascua are not futile, this factor weighs in favor of granting 11 plaintiff’s motion to amend. See Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris,

(9th Cir. 12 2017) (amendment is futile when no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the 13 pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense). 14 4. Bad Faith 15 For a court to deny leave to amend based on bad faith, the court must find that “the 16 plaintiff merely is seeking to prolong the litigation by adding new but baseless legal theories,” 17 Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc.,

, 881 (9th Cir. 1999), or that the plaintiff has 18 otherwise acted with a “wrongful motive,” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton,

, 187 19 (9th Cir. 1987). This Court finds that plaintiff’s proposed amendment is not made in bad faith. 20 Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of granting the motion to amend. 21 5. Previous Amendments 22 As discussed above, plaintiff filed a defective motion to amend one day before the 23 discovery deadline. Plaintiff then filed the pending motion for leave to file the first amended 24 complaint. Plaintiff’s previous defective motion to amend does not weigh in favor of denying 25 plaintiff’s motion to amend. See Ascon Props, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co.,

, 1160 (9th 26 Cir. 1989) (“The district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where 27 plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.”). 28 / / / 1 6. Conclusion 2 For the reasons discussed above, this Court finds that the factors weigh in favor of 3 || granting plaintiff's motion to amend pursuant to Rule 15. 4 C. Conclusion 5 For the reasons discussed above, plaintiff's motion amend is granted. See also Crowley v. 6 || Bannister,

(9th Cir. 2013) (“[a] district court abuses its discretion by denying 7 || leave to amend where the complaint’s deficiencies could be cured by naming the correct 8 | defendant.”); see also Wakefield v. Thompson,

(9th Cir. 1999) (citing 9 || Gillespie v. Civiletti,

(9th Cir. 1980) (“where the identity of the alleged defendant is 10 || not known prior to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through 11 || discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover 12 | the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.”) (quotation and 13 || citation marks omitted). 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF No. 31) 15 || is granted. 16 || Dated: May 20, 2025 A aA Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 Cross3045 mta/2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28