Floyd v. Santa Clara Department of Correction

Background

Michael Devin Floyd, who was representing himself, alleged that his rights were violated while he was detained after his August 18, 2021 arrest. He alleged that officers denied him a third bathroom visit, refused his requests for phone calls, and later used force to restrain him after he refused to change into prison clothing. He also alleged that officers made fake attempts to call the number he provided and eventually told him he had to wait 24 hours to use the phone. The opinion states that his earlier complaints appeared to assert federal civil-rights claims concerning bathroom and phone access, excessive force, and policies or customs at the facilities.

Floyd sought permission to file a third amended complaint adding 24 individual defendants and seven state-law claims. He submitted an initial proposed complaint with his motion and a revised proposed complaint with his reply. The defendants opposed the motion.

Court’s analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) generally directs courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires, but amendment is not automatic. The court considered delay, prejudice, and the adequacy of Floyd’s proposed allegations.

As to the 24 individual defendants, the court found that Floyd had not unduly delayed and that adding them would not cause undue prejudice. Floyd had previously indicated that he intended to amend after learning the names of staff members through discovery, and he added the defendants after receiving those names. But the court found that the revised proposed complaint still lacked the required specificity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). For example, it listed multiple officers in connection with the use of force without explaining each officer’s actions. It also did not clearly identify which claims Floyd brought against which defendants.

As to the seven state-law claims, the court found that Floyd had known about them for months and had chosen not to assert them earlier because he did not want his arguments examined before trial. The court determined that this tactical choice did not justify the delay, so Floyd could not add those claims at this stage.

Disposition

The court denied Floyd’s motion to file either proposed third amended complaint. It granted Floyd permission to file, within 14 days, a further revised third amended complaint that states specifically the claims against each individual defendant and the factual basis for those claims, including the precise actions concerning phone access, bathroom access, and the alleged use of force. Any claims against individual defendants that are not pleaded with specificity will be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2). The further revised complaint may not include the state-law claims discussed in the order, and the court stated that it would not entertain further amendments after that complaint is filed.