Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Alexis Ortiz filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on March 2, 2026, asserting excessive force and Monell liability claims against the County of Fresno and Doe defendants. After filing a first amended complaint on April 1, 2026, the court issued a scheduling order on June 24, 2026, setting an August 28, 2026 deadline for joinder and amendment of pleadings. On that deadline, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a second amended complaint to substitute five named Fresno County Sheriff’s Office deputies—Victor Rosales, Nico Sarafian, Asadour Wairdian, Ryan O’Donnell, and Lt.
Mike George—for Doe defendants 1 through 5. The motion stated that Plaintiff received an arrest report on August 26, 2026, which identified the deputies’ precise involvement in the alleged excessive force. The County of Fresno filed a statement of non-opposition on September 10, 2026, and the court took the motion under submission on October 2, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Because the motion was filed before the scheduling order’s amendment deadline, the court applied the liberal standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) rather than the ‘good cause’ standard of Rule 16(b).
The court found no undue prejudice to defendants given their non-opposition, no undue delay because the motion was timely under the scheduling order, no bad faith because Plaintiff moved promptly after receiving the arrest report identifying the deputies, and no futility. The court ordered Plaintiff to file the lodged second amended complaint within seven days and directed newly added defendants to answer or otherwise respond in compliance with Rule 15(a)(3) and local rules.
Key Takeaways
- The court applied Rule 15(a)(2)’s liberal amendment standard because Plaintiff moved before the Rule 16(b) scheduling deadline, not the more stringent ‘good cause’ standard.
- Defendants’ non-opposition weighed heavily in finding no undue prejudice, which the Ninth Circuit treats as the most significant factor.
- Plaintiff’s prompt action—filing the motion two days after receiving the arrest report identifying the deputies—defeated any inference of bad faith or undue delay.
- The court distinguished between adding claims (granted more freely) and adding parties, but found the substitution of named deputies for Doe defendants appropriate here.
- The order imposes a strict seven-day deadline to file the second amended complaint as a standalone docket entry.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the Eastern District of California’s application of the Ninth Circuit’s liberal amendment framework under Rule 15(a)(2) when a plaintiff moves to substitute named defendants for Doe defendants before a scheduling order deadline. The decision reinforces that timely receipt of discovery identifying previously unknown actors justifies amendment, and that a defendant’s non-opposition effectively concedes the prejudice factor. The ruling allows Plaintiff’s excessive force and Monell claims to proceed against five specific deputies rather than placeholder Doe defendants, advancing the case toward merits resolution.
The order did not decide whether Ortiz can prove excessive force or municipal liability. It resolved only whether the pleading could be amended to replace Doe placeholders with officers identified in the newly obtained arrest report. Ortiz had seven days from entry of the order to file the lodged second amended complaint as a separate docket entry. Responsive pleadings from newly served parties remain governed by Rule 15(a)(3) and the local rules.