Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Malik Davis is proceeding on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants Jasmin Herrera, Jaime Rivera, and Edward Renteria used excessive force against him on May 17, 2023. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California as No. 1:24-cv-00896-KES-BAM (PC). Davis sought to expand the action through two motions to amend his complaint, identified as Documents 44 and 47. His proposed amendments would have added a state-law battery claim and claims against defendants in their official capacities.
A magistrate judge considered those requests and issued findings and recommendations on September 29, 2026, as Document 55. The magistrate judge determined that leave to amend was not warranted because amendment would be futile, and therefore recommended that both motions be denied. The district court's order recounts that conclusion but does not independently set out the claim-by-claim analysis underlying the futility determination.
The findings and recommendations were served on the parties on September 29, 2026, with instructions that objections were due within 14 days. The court also warned that failure to file timely objections could result in waiver of rights on appeal, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014). No party filed objections, and the objection period expired before the district court acted. The resulting order was dated October 31, 2026, and filed November 2, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the district court conducted a de novo review of the findings and recommendations. After reviewing the matter, the court concluded that they were supported by the record and by proper analysis. It therefore adopted the September 29, 2026 findings and recommendations in full. This was a substantive ruling on the requested amendments, not merely a procedural extension or scheduling order: the court accepted the determination that the proposed amendments would be futile.
The court denied Davis's motions to amend the complaint, Documents 44 and 47. Consequently, Davis may not use those motions to add the proposed state-law battery claim or official-capacity claims. The order does not dismiss the existing § 1983 excessive-force claim or enter judgment for any party. Instead, it leaves the operative complaint in place and resolves only the requests to expand that pleading through the proposed amendments.
The court also directed defendants to file a responsive pleading to the operative complaint within 30 days of service of the order. That directive moves the existing action forward following denial of the amendment requests. The order does not decide whether the alleged excessive force occurred, assess the merits of the underlying § 1983 claim, or specify further reasoning beyond adopting the magistrate judge's supported findings and recommendations.
Key Takeaways
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge's September 29, 2026 findings and recommendations in full after conducting de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
- Davis's motions to amend his complaint were denied because the magistrate judge found that adding the proposed claims would be futile.
- The rejected amendments sought to add a state-law battery claim and official-capacity claims to an action proceeding on a § 1983 excessive-force theory.
- No party objected within the 14-day period, despite the court's warning that untimely objections could waive appellate rights.
- The existing action remains pending, and defendants must respond to the operative complaint within 30 days of service of the order.
Why It Matters
The order defines the pleading scope of Davis's action by refusing the proposed battery and official-capacity amendments while preserving the existing excessive-force claim for further proceedings. It illustrates the distinction between denying leave to amend and resolving the merits of the claims already pleaded: the court's futility ruling concerns the proposed additions, not a final adjudication of the underlying allegations.
The decision also shows the practical importance of findings-and-recommendations procedures. The magistrate judge supplied the futility analysis and recommendation, the parties received an opportunity to object and a warning about appellate waiver, and the district judge then conducted the required de novo review before adopting the recommendation and issuing the operative denial. The accompanying response deadline establishes the next step in the litigation without altering the limited nature of the ruling.