KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint and proposed fourth amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 44, 45). On May 19, 2015, defendants filed an opposition to this motion.
For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff's motion to amend to include his previously dismissed claim challenging the restitution order should be denied. Plaintiff's motion to amend to seek injunctive relief against defendants Woodford and Shaffer with respect to his claim challenging the calculation of filing fees is denied without prejudice.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), the court "should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." To determine whether to grant leave to amend, the court considers five factors: "(1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended his complaint."
This action is proceeding on the second amended complaint filed October 20, 2014, as to defendants Duffy and Payan. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants did not properly calculate his filing fee payments. (
Plaintiff's second amended complaint contained a second claim alleging that the abstract of judgment and minute order issued in his criminal case incorrectly stated that he was ordered to pay restitution. On February 6, 2015, the court dismissed this claim for failing to state a potentially colorable claim for relief. (ECF No. 31.)
The proposed fourth amended complaint names defendants Payan and Duffy as well as Superior Court Reporter Nagao, Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Ken Lamb, Los Angeles County Deputy Public Defender Clark, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") Assistant Secretary Shaffer, CDCR Under Secretary Woodford, Deputy Attorney General Heckler and California Medical Facility ("CMF") Appeals Coordinator Milliner. (ECF No. 45 at 1.)
The proposed fourth amended complaint contains plaintiff's claim alleging that defendants Duffy and Payan did not properly calculate his filing fees. However, plaintiff is also attempting to bring his previously dismissed claim challenging the restitution order. The proposed fourth amended complaint seeks injunctive relief as to both of these claims. (
With respect to the restitution order, plaintiff alleges that defendant Nagao made the "erroneous" entry in his abstract of judgment stating that he owed restitution. (
As discussed above, the court previously considered plaintiff's claim challenging the allegedly erroneous restitution order and found that it failed to state a potentially colorable claim for relief. (
A district court abuses its discretion in applying the law of the case doctrine only if (1) the first decision was clearly erroneous; (2) an intervening change in the law occurred; (3) the evidence on remand was substantially different; (4) other changed circumstances exist; or (5) a manifest injustice would otherwise result. 235 F.3d at 452-53. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any of these exceptions warrant reconsideration of the previous order dismissing his claim challenging the allegedly erroneous restitution order. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to amend to include this claim should be denied.
Plaintiff also alleges that defendants conspired to impose the erroneous restitution order on him. A conspiracy, in and of itself, is not an actionable tort or separate cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
"A civil conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons who, by some concerted action, intend to accomplish some unlawful objective for the purpose of harming another which results in damage."
Because the underlying constitutional claim challenging the restitution order does not state a potentially colorable constitutional claim, plaintiff's related conspiracy claim fails as well. Moreover, plaintiff's conclusory claims of conspiracy are insufficient to show a meeting of the minds. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to amend to add a conspiracy claim should be denied.
Plaintiff also seeks to add defendants Shaffer and Woodford to his claim challenging the calculation of filing fees. In particular, plaintiff requests that these defendants be ordered to recalculate his filing fees. (ECF No. 45 at 13.) Defendants argue that plaintiff has not linked defendants CDCR Assistant Secretary Shaffer and CDCR Under Secretary Woodford to his claim challenging the calculation of filing fees.
In a complaint seeking injunctive relief only, all that is required is that the complaint name an official who could appropriately respond to a court order on injunctive relief should one ever be issued.
Plaintiff does not clearly allege that the at-issue filing fee policy is a state policy. For this reason, the motion to amend to add defendants Shaffer and Woodford to this claim for injunctive relief is denied without prejudice. On July 7, 2015, defendants Duffy and Payan filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. If defendants' summary judgment motion is denied, plaintiff will be permitted to file an amended complaint naming Shaffer and Woodford as defendants if he is challenging a state policy and if defendants Shaffer and Woodford could respond to a court order on injunctive relief. If defendants' summary judgment motion is granted, plaintiff's motion to amend to add Shaffer and Woodford as defendants will be unnecessary.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to file a fourth amended complaint (ECF No. 44) to add defendants Shaffer and Woodford as defendants with respect to his claim challenging the calculation of filing fees is denied without prejudice; the court will issue further orders regarding these proposed new defendants following resolution of defendants' summary judgment motion, if appropriate;
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion to file a fourth amended complaint (ECF No. 44) be denied with respect to his request to add his previously dismissed claims challenging the allegedly erroneous restitution order.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order.