Adams et al v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SHELTON ADAMS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CRAIG ALAN KOENIG, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 21-cv-08545-JST
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND; SCHEDULING
ORDER
Re: ECF No. 165
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend. ECF No. 165. The Court will
deny the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are a group of 44 current or former prisoners housed at the Correctional Training
Facility Soledad (“CTF”) who filed this action on behalf of themselves and a class seeking redress
for alleged injuries they suffered as a result of a July 20, 2020, incident at the facility called
Operation Akili. ECF No. 91 (Third Amended Complaint) ¶¶ 1–11. In the incident, “[m]ost of
the inmates, including Plaintiffs, were forcefully dragged out of bed, and in the process, pushed,
shoved, choked, slammed, beaten, and/or otherwise battered by guards, which resulted in various
personal injuries, psychological torment, and other economic and non-economic damage.” Id. ¶ 8.
Plaintiffs bring claims for (1) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Eighth Amendment); (2) U.S.C.
§ 1985 (Eighth Amendment); (3) racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; (4)
discrimination-based violence under the Ralph Act, California Civil Code § 51.7(b)(1); (5)
violation of the California Bane Act; (6) assault; (7) common law battery; (8) intentional infliction
of emotional distress; (9) negligence; and (10) negligent supervision. ECF No. 91 ¶¶ 760–911.
This case was filed on November 3, 2021. ECF No. 1. The Court granted in part a motion
Case 4:21-cv-08545-JST Document 212 Filed 08/11/26 Page 1 of 5

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
to dismiss and a motion to sever on December 28, 2022, ECF No. 33, and Plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint on January 25, 2023, ECF No. 34. The Court partially granted a motion to
dismiss, and Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on April 1, 2024. ECF Nos. 60, 72.
Plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint on March 28, 2025, which is the operative complaint.
ECF No. 91.
On September 30, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint without seeking leave
of court, and Defendants moved to strike it. ECF Nos. 149, 153. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for
leave to file a fourth amended complaint on October 15, 2025 and withdrew their previous
proposed complaint. ECF No. 156. Defendants opposed that motion. ECF No. 157. Plaintiffs
again withdrew their motion for leave to amend and filed the motion to amend now before the
Court on November 4, 2025. ECF No. 165. Defendants opposed the motion on November 18,
2025, and Plaintiffs filed a reply on November 22, 2025. ECF Nos. 178, 181. The Court granted
a motion to consolidate Underwood v. CDCR, 24-cv-4399-JST with this case on July 14, 2026.
ECF No. 211
II. JURISDICTION
The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that “a party may amend its pleading
only with the opposing party‘s written consent or the court‘s leave. The court should freely give
leave when justice so requires.” The Court considers five factors in deciding whether to grant
leave: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment,
and (5) whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint. In re Western States Wholesale
Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 738 (9th Cir. 2013). Leave is granted with “extreme
liberality,” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003), but “not
automatically.” Western States, 715 F.3d at 738.
IV. DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs seek to add approximately 65 new defendants and an unknown number of new
allegations and claims. Defendants oppose the motion on grounds of futility, undue delay, and
Case 4:21-cv-08545-JST Document 212 Filed 08/11/26 Page 2 of 5

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
prejudice. ECF No. 178. The Court will deny the motion on futility grounds without reaching
Defendants’ other arguments.
“An amendment is futile when no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the
pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense.” Missouri ex rel. Koster v.
Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 656 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation modified). “Under Rule 15(a), ‘[i]f the
underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he
ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits.’” Allen v. Bayshore Mall, No.
12-cv-02368-JST, 6441504 WL 2013, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2013) (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at
182). For this reason, “[d]enial of leave to amend on [futility grounds] is rare. Ordinarily, courts
will defer consideration of challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after
leave to amend is granted and the amended pleading is filed.” GMAC Mortgage LLC v. Nevada
Ass’n Servs., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-01157-GMN-NJK, 2018 WL 487101, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 5, 2018)
(internal citations and quotations omitted). In the appropriate case, however, denial on futility
grounds is appropriate. See, e.g., United States for use & benefit of Source Helicopters, Div. of
Rogers Helicopters, Inc. v. Sayers Constr., LLC, No. 219CV1602JCMEJY, 2020 WL 3643431, at
*3 (D. Nev. July 6, 2020); Akinola v. Severns, No. 3:14-CV-00222-HDM, 2015 WL 456535, at *2
(D. Nev. Feb. 2, 2015).
As an initial matter, the Court will deny the motion because it does not know what relief
Plaintiffs are seeking. Plaintiffs did not file a redlined copy of the fourth amended complaint, and
their motion does not identify the proposed amendments with specificity. The fourth amended
complaint is 195 pages long and attaches an additional 50 pages of exhibits. ECF No. 165-2. It is
not the Court’s job to compare that document to its predecessor and identify all the proposed
changes. Plaintiffs’ failure to identify the particular amendments they seek and the reasons for
them is sufficient grounds by itself to deny the motion. See Sedillo v. Johnson, No. CIV. 2:08-
00782 JMS, 2009 WL 5215593, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2009) (denying leave to amend in part
because plaintiff “provided no explanation of how he proposes to amend his claims”).
The Court has, however, been able to discern that the fourth amended complaint names 65
correctional officers as new defendants. It does not allege that these defendants violated
Case 4:21-cv-08545-JST Document 212 Filed 08/11/26 Page 3 of 5

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Plaintiffs’ rights, only that they might have done so. Paragraph 61 is illustrative:
Defendant 2, Alyssa Aguirre. Defendant Alyssa D. Aguirre is a
CDCR correctional officer and was identified as involved in
Operation Akili in an October 21, 2025 disclosure by the Office of
Inspector General. It is therefore plausible that she was one of the
guards who extracted one or more the inmates in a violent and
excessive fashion. Even if she did not, she is potentially liable as a
person who supervised the event (Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205
(9th Cir. 2011)), conspired to conduct it in the illegal fashion that it
was carried out (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)), or performed acts that aided,
assisted, or enabled the wrongs complained of herein (Meyers v.
Redwood City, 400 F.3d 765, 767 (9th Cir. 2004); Casey v. U.S. Bank,
127 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1144 (2005)). She is believed to be either a
resident of this judicial district or otherwise subject to personal
jurisdiction in this court.
ECF No. 165-2 ¶ 61. Plaintiffs have added defendants, not because they did participate in the
alleged wrongdoing, but to determine if they participated in it. Plaintiffs’ motion confirms this.
ECF 165 at 24 (“The contemporaneous Fourth Amended Complaint names all 101 known Akili
participants, in what has become the necessary procedure to systematically determine what
happened as soon as possible, in light of CDCR’s discovery positions.”).
These allegations are not sufficient to require defendants to answer. The proposed
amendments allege no specific facts about the proposed defendants and simply speculate, on the
basis of their involvement in Operation Akili in some way, that all the named officers either were
potential participants in the extraction of the prisoners or potentially failed to stop the extraction of
the prisoners. The complaint alleges that since CDCR cannot identify which individual officer
extracted each plaintiff, it is “plausible” that each of the proposed defendants was a “guard who
extracted one or more inmates in a violent and excessive fashion,” or in the alternative that they
are potentially liable for permitting or not stopping the extractions. See e.g. ECF No. 165-1 ¶ 89.
“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). These “speculation[s] and conclusive
assertions are insufficient to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Galindo v. BSI Fin.
Servs., Inc., No. 17-CV-00021-LHK, 2017 WL 1036735, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017). The
allegations in the proposed complaint amount to “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 557; see also
Case 4:21-cv-08545-JST Document 212 Filed 08/11/26 Page 4 of 5

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Ponomarenko v. Shapiro, 287 F. Supp. 3d 816, 830 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (dismissing a claim that
failed to identify the defendant’s wrongdoing and merely recited the elements of the statute).
Plaintiffs assert that their amended complaint satisfies the pleading standards, citing
Howard v. City of Los Angeles, 2016 WL 11969808, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2016). That case is
not helpful to Plaintiffs. In Howard, plaintiff clearly alleged that each of the defendant officers
was present and participated in the altercation with plaintiff. Id. Plaintiffs’ fourth amended
complaint makes no such allegation. Instead, Plaintiffs allege that 100 officers could have been
responsible for either extracting or failing to prevent the extraction of Plaintiffs. “Because the
proposed amended complaint would be subject to dismissal, the Court finds that the amendment
would be futile.” Curevo, Inc. v. Choe, No. C19-0572RSL, 2019 WL 5693788, at *3 (W.D.
Wash. Nov. 4, 2019) (citation modified); Evox Prods. LLC v. Chrome Data Sols., LP, No. 3:16-
CV-00057-JR, 2019 WL 3495848, at *4 (D. Or. June 26, 2019) (holding that “leave to amend can
be denied as futile where the proposed amendments would not survive a motion to dismiss”
(citation omitted)), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:16-CV-00057-JR, 2019 WL
3467858 (D. Or. July 31, 2019).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a fourth
amended complaint.
Given Plaintiffs’ numerous prior amendments, the Court also finds it appropriate to set a
deadline to amend the pleadings for purposes of establishing a good cause requirement under Rule
16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That deadline is August 18, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 11, 2026
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
Case 4:21-cv-08545-JST Document 212 Filed 08/11/26 Page 5 of 5