# Phillips

> District Court, E.D. California · March 12, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11377120

## Case

- **Full name:** Vincent DeLeon v. Phillips, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** March 12, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11377120

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5

6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8

9
VINCENT DELEON, 1:24-cv-00234-KES-EPG (PC)
10
11 Plaintiff, F R I E N C D O I M NG M S E A N N D D IN R G E P C L O A M IN M T E I N FF D ’ A S T M IO O N TI S O N
12 v. F C O O R M L P E L A A V IN E T T 1 O B E F I D L E E N A IE N D A MENDED
13 PHILLIPS, et al.,
(ECF No. 56)
14 Defendant.
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
15 THIRTY (30) DAYS

16
Plaintiff Vincent DeLeon is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
17
this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint
18
commencing this action on February 26, 2024. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleged excessive use of
19
force at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (CSATF).
20
Following screening of Plaintiff’s original complaint and filing of a first amended
21
complaint, Plaintiff’s case now proceeds on against Defendant Steven Santiago, a correctional
22
officer at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, for excessive force in violation of the
23
Eighth Amendment. (ECF Nos. 11, 14). The deadline to complete non-expert discovery is
24
currently March 18, 2026.
25
\\\
26

27
1 Plaintiff’s motion asks for leave to file a “Third Amended Complaint.” However, as the operative
28 complaint in this action is the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11), an amended complaint would be
the Second Amended Complaint.
1 On February 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a further amended
2 complaint and lodged the proposed amended complaint with the Court. (ECF Nos. 56 and 57).
3 Plaintiff seeks to add previously dismissed Defendant Warden Bryan Phillips, as well as eight
4 additional defendants: Correctional Officer N. Bonilla, Correctional Officer I. Rodriguez,
5 Correctional Lieutenant J. Ervin, Correctional Captain J. Sherman, S. Rodriguez, Correctional
6 Sergeant J. Herrmann, Correctional Lieutenant J. Barrios, and CDCR. Plaintiff also seeks to
7 add twelve additional claims for various violations.
8 For the following reasons, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file
9 an amended complaint (ECF No. 56) be DENIED.
10 I. BACKGROUND
11 A. Plaintiff’s Initial Complaint
12 Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on February 26, 2024. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s
13 complaint named as Defendants Bryan Phillips, Warden of CSATF; J. Ervin, D Yard
14 Lieutenant at CSATF; J. Sherman, D Yard Captain at CSATF; S. Santiago, Gym Officer at
15 CSATF. (ECF No. 1 at 3). Plaintiff’s complaint asserted an excessive force claim related to an
16 incident on July 20, 2023. Plaintiff alleged that S. Santiago came to Plaintiff’s cell door,
17 kicked it, and told Plaintiff to get up. Santiago had Plaintiff “strip out” and zip cuffed his hands
18 behind his back before his cell door was opened. Plaintiff turned around to be escorted out
19 backwards. Next thing Plaintiff knew, he was being lifted off the ground and since his hands
20 were cuffed behind his back, his head was slammed onto his bottom bunk, and he lost
21 consciousness.
22 On April 19, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that while the
23 allegations in the complaint appeared to describe an incident of excessive force, it was not clear
24 from the complaint who used force against him. Plaintiff listed several officers and the Warden
25 of CSATF as defendants but did not describe what any of them did in his description of the
26 event. (ECF No. 10).
27 As to his claim of Supervisor Liability against Warden Phillips, the Court’s screening
28 order explained, “Plaintiff fails to state a claim for supervisory liability against Warden Philips.
1 Plaintiff makes no allegation that the Warden was personally involved in the assault. Nor does
2 Plaintiff allege that Warden Phillips instituted a policy that caused the use of force, that he
3 knew of the alleged violation but failed to prevent it, or that he failed to train or supervise
4 subordinates in a way that led to the alleged violation.” (Id. at 6).
5 The Court provided Plaintiff with leave to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 1).
6 B. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
7 Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on May 10, 2024. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff’s
8 First Amended Complaint generally alleged that Defendant Steven Santiago, a correctional
9 officer, slammed Plaintiff’s head into a bunk while Plaintiff was handcuffed with his hands
10 behind his back. It also alleged that the Warden did not take any action against Santiago but
11 instead gave him three months paid vacation. (Id. at 2).
12 The Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on May 21, 2024, and issued
13 Findings and Recommendations that the Action Proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment
14 Excessive Force Claim Against Defendant S. Santiago, and that All Other Claims and
15 Defendants Be Dismissed. (ECF No. 11). The Court recommended that the action proceed
16 only against Defendant Santiago on a claim of excessive force in violation of the Eighth
17 Amendment. The Court found that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint failed to state a claim
18 for supervisory liability against Warden Philips because it did not allege that the Warden was
19 personally involved in the assault, instituted a policy that caused the use of force, knew of the
20 alleged violation but failed to prevent it, or failed to train or supervise subordinates in a way
21 that led to the alleged violation.
22 On October 15, 2024, the presiding District Judge, Kirk E. Sherriff, adopted the
23 Findings and Recommendations and ordered that “[t]his case shall PROCEED on plaintiff’s
24 claim of excessive force against defendant Steven Santiago, a correctional officer at CSATF;”
25 and “[a]ll other claims and defendants are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which
26 relief may be granted.” (ECF No. 14).
27 C. Case Proceeds Against Defendant Santiago
28 The case has proceeded against Defendant Santiago since that time. Defendant
1 Santiago was served with the first amended complaint. (ECF No. 15, 16). The parties
2 participated in a settlement conference on May 23, 2025. (ECF No. 36). The Court opened
3 discovery on July 21, 2025. (ECF No. 45). According to the current schedule, non-expert
4 discovery is set to close on March 18, 2026. (ECF No. 46).
5 II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
6 On February 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a[n] amended complaint
7 and lodged the proposed amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 56, 57). Plaintiff seeks leave to add
8 nine new defendants, reinstate Warden Bryan Philips, and assert twelve new causes of action.
9 Plaintiff’s motion argues that documents produced in discovery have revealed:
(1) identities of rules of additional correctional officers who filed false reports regarding
10
the July 20, 2023 use of force incident; (2) the identities of supervisory personnel
11 involved in the investigation and disciplinary proceedings who ratified Defendant
Santiago’s misconduct; (3) evidence of a coordinated conspiracy to cover up the
12 excessive force through false official reports; and (4) evidence that Defendant Santiago
has an extensive history of misconduct, including evidence tampering and filing false
13
reports—that was known to his supervisors, who failed to train, supervise, or discipline
14 him, and (5) evidence that Warden Bryan Philips, as the final reviewing authority, had
personal knowledge of Santiago’s prior misconduct and ratified the constitutional
15 violations against Plaintiff.
16 (ECF No. 56 at 2).
17 Specifically, Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint alleges that Correctional Officers
18 I. Salcedo, N. Bonilla, and I. Rodriguez, filed false official reports regarding the July 20, 2023,
19 incident that corroborated Defendant Santiago's false narrative and helped cover up the
20 excessive force. Sergeant I. Salcedo was the immediate supervisor present during the incident
21 who also filed a false report. Lieutenant J. Ervin was the incident Commander and was
22 responsible for investigating both the use of force and the retaliatory Rules Violation Report
23 (“RVR”) for Defendant. Captain J. Sherman, the Facility D Commander, S. Rodriguez,
24 Sergeant J. Herrmann, and Lieutenant J. Barrios, were involved in the adjudication of the RVR
25 investigation and ratified Defendant Santiago's misconduct. Defendant Santiago had an
26 extensive history of misconduct, including prior findings that “he tampered with evidence to
27 cause a false positive urine analysis test result in order to maliciously implicate an inmate.”
28 Sergeant J. Hermann previously "vouched" for Santiago's credibility in a prior investigation
1 involving Santiago's misconduct, resulting in Herrman being demoted from his supervisor role.
2 There was a coordinated conspiracy among the Defendants to justify the excessive force
3 through false reports and to retaliate against Plaintiff through a malicious and false RVR.
4 Warden Phillips ratified the constitutional violations by approving the biased investigation and
5 RVR adjudication despite the obvious conflicts of interest and due process violations. (Id. at 5-
6 6).
7 Based on this evidence, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint and add nine new
8 defendants: Correctional Officer N. Bonilla, Correctional Officer I. Rodriguez, Correctional
9 Lieutenant J. Ervin, Correctional Captain J. Sherman, S. Rodriguez, Correctional Sergeant J.
10 Herrmann, Correctional Lieutenant J. Barrios, and CDCR; and reinstate the previously
11 dismissed defendant, Warden Philips.
12 Plaintiff also seeks to add twelve additional claims including Failure to Intervene in
13 violation of the Eighth Amendment; Supervisory Liability for Failure to Train, Supervise,
14 Discipline; Fabrication of Evidence/Filing False Reports; Retaliation in violation of the First
15 Amendment, Due Process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; Civil Rights Conspiracy;
16 Failure to Prevent Conspiracy; Violation of the Tome Bane Civils Rights Act; Battery;
17 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Defamation; Vicarious Liability/Respondeat
18 Superior. (ECF No. 57 at 12-20).2
19 III. LEGAL STANDARDS
20 Under Rule 15(a), a party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course within
21 twenty-one days of service, or if the pleading is one to which a response is required, twenty-one
22 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). “In all
23 other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or
24 the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
25 Granting or denying leave to amend is in the discretion of the Court. Swanson v. United
26 States Forest Service, 87 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996). “In exercising this discretion, a court
27

28
2 Defendant did respond to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, and the time to do so has passed.
1 must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits, rather
2 than on the pleadings or technicalities.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir.
3 1981). “Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to
4 amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of the amendment, and
5 whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Desertrain v. City of Los
6 Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted); see also Eminence Cap., LLC
7 v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Prejudice is the ‘touchstone of the
8 inquiry under rule 15(a).’”) (citation omitted).
9 “Although leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires,’ Fed.R.Civ.P.
10 15(a), it ‘is not to be granted automatically.’” Zivkovic v. S. California Edison Co., 302 F.3d
11 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). “Leave to amend may be denied if the proposed
12 amendment is futile or would be subject to dismissal.” Wheeler v. City of Santa Clara, 894
13 F.3d 1046, 1059 (9th Cir. 2018).
14 “[L]ate amendments to assert new theories are not reviewed favorably when the facts
15 and the theory have been known to the party seeking amendment since the inception of the
16 cause of action.” Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Sw. Marine, 194 F.3d 1009, 1016–17 (9th Cir. 1999).
17 “Although delay is not a dispositive factor in the amendment analysis, it is relevant, especially
18 when no reason is given for the delay.” Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Sols., Inc., 194
19 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted); See also Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d
20 794, 799 (9th Cir. 1991) (an eight-month delay from time of obtaining facts until filing
21 amended complaint is unreasonable) (citing Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1388
22 (9th Cir. 1990)).
23 IV. ANALYSIS
24 The Court recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a further amended
25 complaint.
26 The Court has examined the factors relevant to whether to grant leave to amend: bad
27 faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of the amendment, and whether the
28 plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.
1 As an initial matter, the Court finds no evidence of bad faith by the Plaintiff.
2 However, the Court does find undue delay. This case has been pending for more than
3 two years. Plaintiff has already amended his complaint, and the case has proceeded through
4 discovery. Plaintiff’s motion argues that he did not unduly delay in bringing these claims
5 because he learned of the underlying facts in newly produced discovery. However, most of the
6 newly asserted claims concern the prison’s filing of an RVR against Plaintiff following the
7 incident, accusing Plaintiff of “Willfully Resisting a Peace Officer in the Performance of
8 Duties.” (ECF No. 57, at p. 8). Plaintiff claims that this RVR was false and “was filed to
9 justify the unjustified use of force and to retaliation against Plaintiff for being the victim of
10 Santiago’s assault.” (ECF No. 57, at p. 8).
11 Plaintiff does not allege when this RVR was filed against him, although it is likely that
12 it was filed shortly after underlying incident on January 20, 2023. In any event, Plaintiff had
13 personal knowledge about this RVR because he participated in the disciplinary proceedings.
14 Thus, Defendants’ recent production of discovery is not a valid excuse for failing to amend his
15 complaint at an earlier time.
16 The Court also finds that further amendment would prejudice the opposing party,
17 Defendant Santiago. If Plaintiff is permitted to file a further amended complaint, the Court
18 would need to screen the second amended complaint, issue Findings and Recommendations
19 consistent with its screening order, serve any new defendants, and allow those new defendants
20 to participate in discovery. This would result in substantial delay to this case against Defendant
21 Santiago.
22 Turning to futility of the amendment, while the Court has not conducted a full screening
23 of the proposed amended complaint, it notes that several claims are futile. For example, the
24 CDCR is not a proper defendant under 1983. Brown v. California Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747,
25 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The district court correctly held that the California Department of
26 Corrections and the California Board of Prison Terms were entitled to Eleventh Amendment
27 immunity.”); Est. of Sumner v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., No. 2:22-CV-01638-JAM-
28 DB, 2023 WL 3304233, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2023) (“CDCR did not waive, nor has
1 Congress abrogated, its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. In turn, the Eleventh
2 Amendment unequivocally precludes Plaintiffs claims against CDCR. The Court therefore
3 finds Plaintiffs failed to state a plausible cause of action against CDCR and dismisses their
4 claims accordingly.”). Additionally, Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to include facts
5 supporting his allegations that certain Supervisory Defendants—Lt. Ervin, Capt. Sherman, Sgt.
6 Salcedo, Sgt. Herrmann, and Lt. Barrios—had knowledge of Defendant Santiago’s propensity
7 for misconduct and failed to act. (ECF No. 57 at 14). See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207
8 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A defendant may be held liable as a supervisor under § 1983 ‘if there exists
9 either (1) his or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient
10 causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional
11 violation.’”). Plaintiff’s amended complaint also fails to state a First Amendment retaliation
12 claim because it does not allege that the RVR was filed in retaliation for Plaintiff exercising
13 constitutionally protected conduct. See Brodheim v. Cry 584 F.3d 1262, 1271 (9th Cir. 2009)
14 (“To prevail on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show that his protected conduct was the
15 substantial or motivating factor behind the defendant's conduct.”) (internal quotations omitted).
16 Instead, Plaintiff alleges that the RVR was filed “to provide a consistent false narrative that
17 would justify the excessive force and shield Santiago from accountability.” (ECF No. 57, at p.
18 8). Plaintiff’s state law claims are also subject to dismissal because Plaintiff’s amended
19 complaint fails to allege compliance with California’s Government Claims Act,3 which
20 requires that a claim against the State4 or its employees “relating to a cause of action for death
21 or for injury to person” be presented to the California Victim Compensation and Government
22 Claims Board, formerly known as the State Board of Control, no more than six months after the
23 cause of action accrues. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905.2, 910, 911.2, 945.4, 950-950.2.
24 \\\
25
3 This Act was formerly known as the California Tort Claims Act. City of Stockton v. Superior Court,
26
42 Cal. 4th 730, 741-42 (Cal. 2007) (adopting the practice of using Government Claims Act rather than
27 California Tort Claims Act).
4 “‘State’ means the State and any office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, commission or
28 agency of the State claims against which are paid by warrants drawn by the Controller.” Cal. Gov’t
Code § 900.6.
] Turning to the last factor, Plaintiff has previously amended his complaint following the
2 || Court’s screening order. (ECF No. 11).
3 Thus, after consideration of the relevant factors, the Court recommends denying
4 || Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a further amended complaint.
5 ||V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
6 Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:
7 1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a [second] amended complaint (ECF No. 56) be
8 DENIED.
9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
10 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days
11 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
12 || objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
13 || Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any objections shall be limited to no more than
14 || fifteen pages, including exhibits. Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within
15 || fourteen days after service of the objections.
16 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
17 || result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir.
18 || 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
19
0 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: _Mareh 12, 2026 □□□ hey —
22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11377120. Public record. Not legal advice.