Caballero v. Jerome County Sheriff's Department, et al.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
JERALD W. CABALLERO,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEROME COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.
Case No. 1:24-cv-00232-REP
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
Plaintiff, a federal prisoner incarcerated in New Jersey, is proceeding pro se in this
civil rights action that challenges the conditions of Plaintiff’s former detention in the
Jerome County Jail. The Court previously entered a Successive Review Order allowing
Plaintiff to proceed on his due process claim of inadequate medical treatment against
Defendant Jerome County Sheriff’s Department. Dkt. 11.
Plaintiff has now filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint, which became ripe on
January 31, 2026, when Defendant did not file a response. Dkt. 39. The proposed
amended complaint seeks to add another entity defendant and numerous individual
defendants. Dkt. 40. The deadline for amendments in this case expired on December 11,
2025. Dkt. 28. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Amend, at the earliest, on December
23, 2025.1
1 Prisoners are usually entitled to the benefit of the “mailbox rule,” which provides that a legal document
is deemed filed on the date the prisoner delivers it to the prison authorities for filing by mail, rather than
Case 1:24-cv-00232-REP Document 44 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
Having fully reviewed the record, the Court finds that the facts and legal
arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record and that oral argument is
unnecessary. See D. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1. Accordingly, the Court enters the following
Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.
1. Standards of Law
If a motion to amend is filed within the time limit set by the scheduling order, the
motion is governed by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under that rule,
the courts “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
However, if a motion to amend is filed after the deadline for amendment has
passed—as in this case—the motion may be granted only if the plaintiff shows good
cause for the delay under Rule 16(b). Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d
604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “A court’s evaluation of good cause is not coextensive with an
inquiry into the propriety of the amendment under Rule 15.” Id. (internal quotation marks
and alteration omitted). Good cause exists when a deadline in the scheduling order
“cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id.
(quoting Adv. Cmte. Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), 1983 amendment).
Though other factors—such as prejudice to the opposing party—also contribute to
the analysis of whether to permit amendment after the deadline, the diligence of the party
the date the clerk actually receives it. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270–71 (1988) (adopting
mailbox rule in habeas case); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009) (applying the
mailbox rule to civil rights action).
Case 1:24-cv-00232-REP Document 44 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
seeking amendment is of primary importance. Id. “[C]arelessness is not compatible with
a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Id.
2. Discussion
Plaintiff asserts he acted diligently in filing his Motion to Amend because he only
recently learned that counsel for the Jerome County Sheriff’s Department does not
represent the individuals Plaintiff seeks to add in his proposed amended complaint. Dkt.
39 at 1–2. However, Plaintiff acknowledges that he learned this fact in late October 2025.
Id. at 2. Plaintiff did not file his Motion to Amend until December 23, 2025—nearly two
months later. Plaintiff has not explained why he could not have moved to amend the
complaint earlier. Indeed, Plaintiff was able to submit a proposed amended complaint
before the deadline expired, though he did not file the required motion. See Dkt. 34 at 2
(“Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Dkt. 29) is STRICKEN from the record as filed
in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and the Court’s previous order.”).
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not established good cause.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (Dkt. 39) is
DENIED.
DATED: February 9, 2026
________________________
Honorable Raymond E. Patricco
Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 1:24-cv-00232-REP Document 44 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 3