Polanco v. State of California

Background

The case concerns the transfer of inmates from California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison during the COVID-19 pandemic. After fact discovery had closed, the plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) for leave to file an amended complaint. They sought to add Vincent Cullen, identified as the former Director of Corrections Services for California Correctional Health Care Services, and Connie Gipson, identified as the former Director of the Division of Adult Institutions for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Legal standard

Rule 15(a)(2) generally directs courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires. The court considered whether there was undue delay, bad faith or an improper motive, repeated failure to fix earlier pleading problems, substantial prejudice to the opposing parties, or futility—that is, whether the amendment would be legally pointless.

Court’s analysis

The court focused on delay, prejudice, and bad faith. It rejected the argument that the plaintiffs unduly delayed because, although they generally knew about the proposed defendants’ responsibilities, they said they did not learn the specifics of their conduct until depositions in 2026. The court also accepted the explanation that the plaintiffs waited until the close of fact discovery and the appointment of a representative for Defendant Tharratt’s estate to avoid piecemeal amendment proceedings. The court noted that delay alone is not enough to deny leave to amend.

The defendants argued that adding Cullen and Gipson after fact and expert discovery had closed would deprive them of an opportunity to prepare defenses and require extensive interrogatories, document requests, and depositions. The court found that the defendants did not explain what additional discovery would be needed beyond material already produced. It also noted that the defendants had largely acted together through the same counsel and that the proposed defendants had not sought additional fact or expert discovery in related litigation. The court concluded that the defendants had not shown the substantial prejudice required to overcome the policy favoring amendment. It stated that any prejudice could be addressed through a reasonable reopening of fact and expert discovery.

On bad faith, the defendants largely repeated their delay arguments and also asserted that the proposed complaint improperly failed to distinguish the proposed defendants from the other defendants and included false allegations. The court rejected those arguments as a basis for denying amendment. It agreed, however, that the proposed complaint improperly alleged that defendants, including the proposed defendants, required Gilbert Polanco to drive sick inmates to the hospital without proper protective equipment. The plaintiffs conceded that point and agreed to remove the allegation.

Disposition

Judge Charles R. Breyer granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The order requires the plaintiffs to strike the allegation about transporting inmates without protective equipment. The opinion does not decide the ultimate merits of the plaintiffs’ claims against the State, the existing defendants, Cullen, or Gipson.