Heard v. Jackson
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:21-cv-09472
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Heard v. Jackson, Judge Corley granted Heard leave to amend his civil-rights complaint and add claims against Sergeant Jackson.
Charles Heard may file a second amended complaint that again asserts claims against Sergeant Damon Jackson; the order does not decide whether those claims will succeed.
What happened
Charles Heard sued Sergeant Damon Jackson and the City and County of San Francisco under a federal civil-rights law. After earlier amendments and motions to dismiss, the court allowed a claim against the City to continue but dismissed Heard’s claims against Jackson without leave to amend.
Heard asked to file a second amended complaint that would again include claims against Jackson. He argued that Jackson had recently testified that he never told the district attorney’s office about his impressions, which Heard said supported materially different allegations.
The court found that Heard had promptly shown in good faith that he could allege new material facts, and that the amendment would not prejudice the City. Judge Corley therefore granted leave to amend under the rule favoring amendments to pleadings.
The detailed version
- Heard v. Jackson · No. 3:21-cv-09472
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Mar. 3, 2023
Background
Charles Heard initially sued Sergeant Damon Jackson and the City and County of San Francisco under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims for violations of constitutional rights by persons acting under state law. After the defendants moved to dismiss, Heard filed a first amended complaint. The court then allowed a claim against the City to proceed but granted Sergeant Jackson’s motion to dismiss.
The court specifically dismissed Heard’s claim that Jackson withheld exculpatory evidence because the amended complaint supported only an inference that Jackson had shared the evidence with district attorney investigators. The court dismissed the claims against Jackson without leave to amend, stating that the record was well-developed and that Heard could not allege in good faith facts showing Jackson’s individual liability.
Motion to Amend
Heard moved to file a second amended complaint. The proposed complaint would again assert claims against Jackson. Heard argued that Jackson had recently testified that he never told the district attorney’s office about his impressions. The opinion states that Heard acted promptly after learning this information.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, courts generally should allow amendments to pleadings unless there is strong evidence of undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to correct deficiencies, undue prejudice, or inability of the amendment to succeed. The court noted that prejudice to the opposing party receives the greatest weight in this analysis.
Ruling
The court found that Heard had made a good-faith showing that he could allege material facts different from those in his first amended complaint. The deadline to seek or stipulate to an amendment had not passed, and the City had not provided evidence or argument that the amendment would cause prejudice or hardship.
The court therefore granted leave to amend. The case-management conference remained scheduled for April 27, 2023, and the order disposed of Docket Nos. 54, 55, 56, and 57.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.