Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Michael T. HAYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IDAHO CORRECTIONAL CENTER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Idaho state prisoner Michael T. Hayes appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment claim arising out of the opening of his legal mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo cross-motions for summary judgment. Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Burke because Hayes failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Burke personally participated in or caused the opening of his legal mail on December 28, 2010 and March 2, 2011. See Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (liability under § 1983 requires personal participation by the defendant in the alleged rights deprivation); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements for supervisory liability under § 1983).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking Hayes's third amended complaint because Hayes did not seek and obtain leave of court to file an amended complaint as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). See Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 403-04 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court has inherent power to control its docket, including power to strike items from the docket); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (explaining that a party may amend “only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave” when it cannot amend as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hayes's untimely motion for leave to amend his complaint because Hayes did not demonstrate good cause for seeking amendment after the deadline to file motions to amend set forth in the Scheduling Order. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-09 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth standard of review and good cause standard).
AFFIRMED.
Response sent, thank you
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-35841
Decided: July 16, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)