Brown v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Background

Lawrence Brown, whom the opinion identifies as a prisoner housed at the Correctional Training Facility Soledad, filed this action for himself and a proposed class. He alleges that a July 20, 2020 nighttime raid called Operation Akili caused a COVID-19 “super-spreader” event, resulting in more than 2,700 traceable infections.

The complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the Eighth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, a federal racial-discrimination statute, California civil-rights statutes, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and negligent supervision. Brown moved for leave to amend and sought to add approximately 50 defendants and an unknown number of allegations and claims.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a party generally may amend a pleading with the opposing party’s consent or the court’s permission. Courts ordinarily allow amendments freely, but may deny leave for reasons including bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, futility, or a party’s prior amendments.

An amendment is futile when the proposed pleading would not state a valid claim even if accepted. The court therefore considered whether Brown’s proposed allegations could survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Court’s analysis

The court first held that Brown had not adequately explained what he wanted to change. He did not provide a redlined complaint, and his motion did not identify the proposed amendments with enough specificity. The proposed first amended complaint was 208 pages long and included 50 pages of exhibits. The court stated that it was not required to compare that document with the earlier complaint and determine the proposed changes itself.

The court nevertheless discerned that the proposed complaint named 50 correctional officers as new defendants. It found that the proposed complaint did not allege specific facts showing that those officers violated Brown’s rights. Instead, the allegations stated that the officers might have been involved in the prisoner extractions, might have supervised the event, might have conspired to conduct it unlawfully, or might have assisted or enabled the alleged wrongdoing.

The court found those allegations speculative and conclusory. It contrasted them with a case in which the plaintiff clearly alleged that each defendant officer was present and participated in the relevant altercation. Because Brown’s proposed complaint did not identify what the proposed defendants specifically did, the court concluded that the proposed amendments would be subject to dismissal and therefore would be futile.

Disposition

The court denied Brown’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. It denied the motion on futility grounds and did not reach the defendants’ separate arguments concerning undue delay and prejudice. The opinion does not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.