This case was last updated from Fresno County Superior Courts on 07/09/2022 at 04:18:27 (UTC).

XXXXX

Case Summary

On 09/16/2013 XXXXX was filed as an Other lawsuit. This case was filed in Fresno County Superior Courts, Fresno County BF Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Hamilton, Jeffrey Y, Ikeda, Dale, Snauffer, Mark and Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3245

  • Filing Date:

    09/16/2013

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Fresno, California

Judge Details

Judges

Ikeda, Dale

Hamilton, Jeffrey Y

Snauffer, Mark

Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Menefield, James Frederick

Petitioner

Menefield, James

Respondents and Defendants

Cate, Matthew

Greene, Nathaniel N.

Walker, Ainsworth

Greene, Nathaniel N

Osborrow, Walter

Brazelton, Paul D.

Oxborrow, Walter

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Brazelton, Paul D

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Menefield, James Frederick

Petitioner Attorney

Menefield, James

Defendant Attorney

Hennes, Lucas L.

 

Court Documents

Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Comment: in support of defendants' motion to withdraw admissions

Reply filed

Reply filed; Comment: to the opposition to the motion for issue and evidence sanctions; attached exhibits

Opposition to Request for Pre-Trial Discovery filed

Opposition to Request for Pre-Trial Discovery fil

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment; Comment: Matter previously taken under advisement, the Court now rules

Declaration Filed

Declaration Filed; Comment: Declaration of Service by U.S. Mail

Declaration Filed

Declaration Filed; Comment: of M Voong in support of summary judgment

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment; Comment: Clerk's Certificate of Mailing attached

Minute Order Attachment (Tentative Rulings Only)

Civil Document; Comment: Clerk's Certificate of Mailing attached.

Deposit, payment,disbursment

Deposit, payment,disbursment; Comment: Inmate Partial Payment of $5.40

6/6/2022 Deposit, payment,disbursment

06/06/2022: 6/6/2022 Deposit, payment,disbursment

Inmate Partial Payment

05/11/2022: Inmate Partial Payment

Deposit, payment,disbursment

08/09/2021: Deposit, payment,disbursment

Deposit, payment,disbursment

05/10/2021: Deposit, payment,disbursment

Deposit, payment,disbursment

02/08/2021: Deposit, payment,disbursment

Deposit, payment,disbursment

12/07/2020: Deposit, payment,disbursment

Deposit, payment,disbursment

11/19/2019: Deposit, payment,disbursment

Deposit, payment,disbursment

11/09/2016: Deposit, payment,disbursment

Deposit, payment,disbursment

10/07/2016: Deposit, payment,disbursment

211 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/06/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDeposit, payment,disbursment; Comment: Inmate Partial Payment; $2.07

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDeposit, payment,disbursment; Comment: Inmate Partial Payment: $2.35

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDeposit, payment,disbursment; Comment: Inmate Partial Payment: $20.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDeposit, payment,disbursment; Comment: Inmate Partial Payment: $20.01

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDeposit, payment,disbursment; Comment: Inmate Partial Payment: $10.44

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDeposit, payment,disbursment; Comment: Inmate Partial Payment: $2.89

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDeposit, payment,disbursment; Comment: Inmate Partial Payment $4.92

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2017
  • DocketJury Trial; Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed; Comment: Jury Defendant 3 - 4 days

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2017
  • DocketTrial Readiness; Judicial Officer: Snauffer, Mark; Hearing Time: 9:30 AM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2016
  • DocketMandatory Settlement Conference; Hearing Time: 1:30 PM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed

    Read MoreRead Less
274 More Docket Entries
  • 11/27/2013
  • DocketProof of service filed; Comment: Proof of service of Appendix of Exhibits, Notice of Hearing on Petition for relief from the tort claims filed. Served on Kamala D Harris, Attorney General by personal service on 11/21/2013. le

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2013
  • DocketNotice of Cal Setting Printed; Comment: Docket entry for the letter produced from CSAEVNT on 17-OCT-2013 by SAMGARCIA.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2013
  • DocketNotice Assignment of Judge; Comment: Docket entry for the letter produced from CDADOCT on 17-OCT-2013 by SAMGARCIA.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2013
  • DocketOrder granting waiver of fees; Comment: Order granting waiver of court fees and costs signed by clerk filed. sg

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2013
  • DocketNotice filed; Comment: Notice of appendix of exhibits filed. sg

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2013
  • DocketNotice of hearing filed; Comment: Notice of hearing of Petition for Relief from the Tort filed. Hearing set on 12-12-13 at 3:30 in 402. sg

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2013
  • DocketCivil case cover sheet; Comment: Civil Case Cover Sheet sg

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2013
  • DocketPetition filed; Comment: Petition for Relief from the Tort Claims filed. sg

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2013
  • DocketZ_Conversion; Comment: Application for waiver of court fees and costs filed. sg Event: App for waiver of court fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2013
  • DocketZ_Conversion; Comment: Event: New Civil Case Filed

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

1 |l James Fredrick Menefield CDCR# T-73670 Sierra Conservation Center 2 ||5150 0'Byrnes Ferry Road Egi Jamestown, CA. 95327

3 || PLAINTIFF APPEARING IN PRO SE | 4 JAN 21 2016 5 FRESNO SUPERIOR COURT

By DEPUTY 6 7

8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF FRESNO

10 11 || JAMES FREDRICK MENEFIELD, Case No. 13CECG03245 JH 12 plaintiff, | AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN

13 AMENDED COMPLAINT; SUPPORTING 14 DECLARATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; ATTACHED

15 || DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND | PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Date : March 16, 2016 16 REHABILITATION, et al., Time : 3:30 p.m. Defendants. | Dept.: 402 17 : Judge: Hon. Jeffery Y. Hamilton 18 19 70 THE DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 20 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 16, 2016, at 3:30 p.m., Or 21 ||las soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department 402 22 |lof the above-entitled court located at 1130 O Street, Fresno, 23 |[{california, Plaintiff James Fredrick Menefield (Plaintiff) will, 24 ||and hereby does, move for an order granting him leave to file an 25 || amended complaint. A copy of the proposed amended complaint is 26 |lattached hereto as Exhibit A.

NNNNNNNNN!—'HI—'HI—‘HH!—'H!—'

ooqmw.bwmn—'oxooo\la\m.hwwl—'o

LAINTIFF APPEARING IN PRO SE

amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Case No. 13CECGO03245 JH Leave to File an Amended Complaint; Supporting Declaration; Points and Authorities

amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Case No. 13CECGO03245 JH Leave to File an Amended Complaint; Supporting Declaration; Points and Authorities O 0O ~N o e W N

O 0O ~N o e W N

NNNNNNNNNH!—'!—'D—-‘O—'H!—'I—‘I—'I—-‘

ooqmm-bwwt—-oxoooslmm.hwwt—-o

DECLARATION OF JAMES FREDRICK MENEFIELD

I, JAMES FREDRICK MENEFIELD, hereby declare:

1. I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I make this declaration in support of my motion for leave to file an amended complaint. A full and complete copy of the proposed amended complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2. This action has been pending since April 21, 2014. The operative pleading has been the subject of a demurrer and motion for summary judgment brought by the named defendants. This Court overruled the demurrer on August 26, 2014 and denied the motion for summary judgment on December 2, 2015.

3. I want to file an amended complaint for two reasons. First, I want to include facts that I learned during discovery. Second, I want to include facts bearing on events that occurred after my transfer from Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP). These facts bear on the continued existence of an actual controversy, for purposes of determining the appropriateness of declaratory relief.

4. The facts learned during discovery bear on the proper interpretation of the Agreement. Specifically, I learned during discovery of CDCR’s admission that: (a) the terms of the Settlement Agreement apply at any CDCR prison wherehoused; (b) the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, RLUIPA, and relevant judicial interpretations of those provisions were incorporated into the Agreement and forms a part thereof; and (c) Judge Seng’s application of the First Amendment and RLUIPA to the facts alleged in the Second Amended Complaint filed in James Fredrick Menefield vs. James A. Yates,

Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Case No. 13CECG03245 JH Leave to File an Amended Complaint; Supporting Declaration; Points and Authorities

Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Case No. 13CECG03245 JH Leave to File an Amended Complaint; Supporting Declaration; Points and Authorities O O ~N-

O O ~N-

NNNNNNNNMHHHHHHHHHH

CD\JO\Lfl.thHO\OCO\IO\U‘l-waHO

et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-02406-MJS (PC), was incorporated into the Settlement Agreement and forms a part thereof.

5. I further want to expand the factual allegations surrounding the events that transpired at Pleasant Valley State Prison, in addition to events surrounding my subsequent transfer to other prisons. I must include these facts to show that an actual controversy continues to exist regarding the interpretation and application of the Agreement. Although I transferred from PVSP, I continue to maintain a contractual relationship with CDCR. This fact was clarified during discovery.

6. The proposed amended complaint is also necessary in light of the motion for summary adjudication that I filed on December 21, 2015. The motion is based on facts that I learned during discovery but are not included in the operative pleading. Thus, I wish to avoid further delay should the Defendants choose to argue that the pending motion cannot be based on facts not alleged in the complaint.

7. As a state prisoner, I am unable to contact defense counsel in a timely manner in order to obtain a stipulation to file an amended pleading.

8. I do not believe that the defendants will be prejudiced by the proposed amended complaint because trial is a year away, and the facts alleged in the amended pleading have already been addressed in discovery. Furthermore, Plaintiff is scheduled to be deposed on January 26, 2016. Thus, any facts that are not clarified can be addressed during the scheduled deposition.

JAMES| FREDRICK MENEFIELD

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION

On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary adjudication of his cause of action for declaratory relief. The original complaint, however, does not include a number of facts and allegations that are contained in the motion for summary adjudication.

The original complaint also does not include facts that were learned during discovery. Namely, that CDCR admits to Plaintiff’s interpretation of the Agreement. Fufthermore, the original complaint does not include facts that tend to show that Plaintiff’s cause of action for declaratory relief is not moot simply because he transferred from PVSP.

Plaintiff now seeks to amend the complaint to include these facts, in addition to an enlargement of facts that are contained in the original complaint but were further clarified during discovery.

The Defendants will not be prejudiced by the proposed amended complaint for several reasons. First, the trial date in this case is January 9, 2017, more than ten (10) months away. Second, the facts included in the proposed amended complaint have already been admitted or clarified during discovery.

Finally, the proposed amended complaint will promote the efficient resolution of this case on the merits. A motion for summary adjudication is pending and could be resolved oncemerits by allowing the proposed amended complaint to be filed before the Defendants’ opposition papers are due. Accordingly, the instant motion should be granted.

Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Case No. 13CECG03245 JH Leave to File an Amended Complaint; Supporting Declaration; Points and Authorities

Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Case No. 13CECG03245 JH Leave to File an Amended Complaint; Supporting Declaration; Points and Authorities O O ~N o U W N

O O ~N o U W N

NNNNMNNNNHHHHHHHHHH

oosloxm.hww»—toxoooqoxm.hwwn—ao

GOVERNING LAW

Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.”! “The court may..in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon such terms as may be juét, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars..”? |

There is a policy of great liberality in allowing amendments to pleadings at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of others. Absent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings will prevail.’

Wwhere an amendment is sought after the statute of limitations has run, the amended complaint will be deemed filed as of the date of the original complaint provided recovery is sought in both pleadings on the same general set of facts, seeks relief for the same injuries, and refers to the same incident as

the original complaint.®

1 code Civ. Proc. § 576. 2 code Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1l). 3 Nestle v. City of Santa Monica, 6 Cal.3d 920, 939 (1372).

¢ carrier Corp. v. Detrex Corp., 4 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1530 (1992); Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., 56 Cal.2d 596, 600 (1961).

7 Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Case No. 13CECG03245 JH

Leave to File an Amended Complaint; Supporting Declaration; Points and Authorities

Leave to File an Amended Complaint; Supporting Declaration; Points and Authorities O O ~N o s W

O O ~N o s W

NONONN®O

ARGUMENT

I. THIS COURT SHOULD ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO FILE THE

PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT BECAUSE IT WOULD PROMOTE THE EFFICIENT RESOLUTION OF THIS CASE ON THE MERITS AND THE DEFENDANTS WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED

Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint for several reasons. First, he wants to include facts learned during discovery that bear on the proper interpretation of the Agreement. Specifically, he learned during discovery of CDCR’s admission that: (a) the terms of the Settlement Agreement apply at any CDCR prison where Plaintiff is or may be housed; (b) the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, RLUIPA, and relevant judicial interpretations of those provisions were incorporated into the Agreement and forms a part thereof; and (c) Judge Seng’s application of the First Amendment and RLUIPA to the facts alleged in the Second Amended Complaint filed in James Fredrick Menefield vs. James A. Yates, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-02406-MJS (PC), was incorporated into the Settlement Agreement and forms a part thereof.’

Second, Plaintiff wants to expand the factual allegations surrounding the events that transpired at Pleasant Valley State Prison, in addition to his subsequent transfer to other prisons.® Third, the proposed amendment is necessary to include facts showing the continued existence of an actual controversy regarding the interpretation and application of the Agreement.

Although Plaintiff is no longer housed at PVSP, he continues to

5 Menefield Decl., 1 4.

¢ Menefield Decl., 91 5. 8

Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Case No. 13CECG03245 JH Leave to File an Amended Complaint; Supporting Declaration; Points and Authorities

Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Case No. 13CECG03245 JH Leave to File an Amended Complaint; Supporting Declaration; Points and AuthoritiesGD\IG\U'Iothl—‘O\OCD\IO\UIoth!—'O

GD\IG\U'Iothl—‘O\OCD\IO\UIoth!—'O

maintain a contractual relationship with CDCR, a fact that has been clarified during discovery.’

Finally, the proposed amendment is necessary to include these facts because Plaintiff recently filed a motion for summary adjudication that is based on facts that he learned during discovery but did not include in an operative pleading. Thus, he wishes to avoid further delay should the Defendants choose to argue that the pending motion cannot be based on facts not alleged in the complaint.’

1I. THE DEFENDANTS WILL NOT BE PREJUDICED BY THE

PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT

“Generally, leave to amend must be liberally granted.., provided there is no statute of limitations concern, nor any prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.”’

The Defendants will not be prejudiced by the proposed amended complaint for several reasons. First, the trial date in this case is January 9, 2017, more than ten (10) months away. Second, the facts included in the proposed amended complaint have already been admitted or clarified during discovery. Finally, Plaintiff is scheduled to be deposed on January 26, 2016.1° Thus, any facts that in the proposed amended complaint

that have not been clarified during discovery can be addressed

7 Menefield Decl., 1 6. 8 Menefield Decl., 1 7.

9 golit v. Tokai Bank, 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448 (1999) (citing Nestle, supra, 6 Cal.3d at 939; Hirsa v. Superior Court, 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490 (1981)).

10 Menefield Decl., 1 8. Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Case No. 13CECG03245 JH

Leave to File an Amended Complaint; Supporting Declaration; Points and Authorities

Leave to File an Amended Complaint; Supporting Declaration; Points and Authorities O 0 ~ o ;& W NN -

O 0 ~ o ;& W NN -

ooqmm.bwmr—-oxooo\lmwhwwv—-o

during the scheduled deposition.

CONCLUSION

plaintiff is not filing this motion for any improper reason. Furthermore, the proposed amended complaint would further the ends of justice by facilitating a speedy resolution of this case on the merits. Finally, allowing the proposed amended complaint to be filed would not prejudice the Defendants because it only contains facts that they already know. Accordingly, this court should grant the instant motion.

DATED: January 19, 2016 Respectfully Submitted:

Fredrick Menefield

LAINTIFF APPEARING IN PRO SE

Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Case No. 13CECG03245 JH Leave to File an Amended Complaint; Supporting Declaration; Points and Authorities

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Lucas Loren Hennes