Bell v. Lee

Background

Vincent Keith Bell, who had been a pretrial detainee in San Francisco County Jail since 2012, alleged that jail officers used excessive force against him on August 13, 2013. His earlier pleadings also asserted retaliation and due-process claims concerning disciplinary hearings. In February 2016, the court granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment, leaving the excessive-force claim as the remaining claim.

The case was later stayed because of pending criminal proceedings and was administratively closed in 2019. The court reopened it in November 2022 and lifted the stay in January 2023. Bell then sought leave to add a Monell claim against the City and County of San Francisco. Bell said he learned about the City’s policies, customs, and alleged failures to train staff concerning safety-cell use and transporting inmates with disabilities during a separate civil trial that occurred while this case was stayed. The defendants opposed the motion.

Legal standards

Because the amendment deadline had passed and the case had been pending for many years, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). That rule requires a showing of “good cause” to modify a scheduling order, with the primary focus on the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The court also required Bell to satisfy Rule 15(a)(2), which generally calls for allowing amendments when justice requires. Relevant Rule 15 factors include undue delay, bad faith, futility, and prejudice to the opposing party.

Good cause

The court found that Bell showed good cause under Rule 16(b)(4). It accepted Bell’s position that he did not learn the facts supporting the proposed Monell theory until testimony in the separate trial while this case was stayed. After the stay was lifted, Bell notified the defendants of his intention to seek amendment and filed the motion. The court also noted that Bell had never amended his complaint with the assistance of counsel because counsel was appointed after the amendment deadline and the case was stayed while counsel was preparing for trial.

Rule 15 factors

The court found no substantial prejudice. Although additional discovery might be necessary, the proposed claim arose from the same incident involved in the case from the beginning. Bell had served six requests for production and one notice for a deposition of the City, and he stated that he did not intend to depose the individual defendants again. The court also noted that trial was not scheduled until March 2024, leaving time for limited discovery without changing the trial date.

The court found no undue delay because Bell said he did not learn the facts underlying the Monell theory until the separate trial and then moved with reasonable diligence after the stay was lifted. The court also declined to decide at that stage whether the proposed claim stated a valid Monell claim or whether the statute of limitations barred it. Those issues, along with the defendants’ other merits arguments, could be addressed later after further discovery and expert reports. Finally, the court found the “previous amendment” factor inapplicable because Bell had not previously attempted to file a Monell claim.

Disposition

The court granted Bell’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. It ordered Bell to file the complaint no later than June 30, 2023, and ordered the defendants to respond to the Monell-related discovery Bell had already served. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of the proposed Monell claim.