You are on page 1of 9

r*

t lui-*
;
--!t

OLIVER B. MITCFIELL III


622WALL STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
90014
(s62) 7t9-3872
IN PRO PER $r"

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


B
OLIVE,R B. MITCHELL III, cv-13-6030-oDw (AS)
9 Plaintiff.
10
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
vs. FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
11 COMPLAINT TO ADD DEF'BNDANTS:
1_2
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF MEMORANDUM OF' POINTS AND
VETERANS AFFAIRS, et a1., AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
13 Defendant. THEREOF
1_4

15

L6
TO ALL PARTIES AIID THEIR COTNSEL OF'RECORD:
t'7
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this matter heard before the Honorable Magistrate
1B
Judge Alka Sagar of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, at
19
312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, Plaintiffs will move and hereby move
20
for leave to amend Mitchell's complaint to add the National Institute of Health (II{IH), the
27
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intellisence Agency (CIA), the
22
National Securi8 Agencv (NSA), the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the Equal
23
Emplovment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),the Department of Defense (DOD), the
24
Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), th
atr
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Defense Advanced
26
Research Proiects Agencv (DARPA), the SRO Housing Corporation to include Denise
2'7
Williams in her official capacity, its agents, officers and employees both fuast and present),
2B

I
NOTICE TO THE COURT CASE 2:13cv6030
1
and the Volunteers of America to include Linda Venema in her official capacity, its agents,
2
officers and employees both (past and present) as defendants.
-
J
This motion is based on the attached memorandum of points and authorities in support
4
thereof, and all files and pleadings in this action.
5 Executed on June 14.2017 at Los Angeles. California.
6

9 OLIYER B. MITCHELL III


10 622 W N-I- STREET
11 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90014
72 (s62\ 71e-3872
13
IN PRO PER
14

15

L6

71

1B

19

20

27

22

23

24

at

25

27

2B

2
NOTICE TO THE COURT CASE 2:13cv6030
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2
In this motion, the Plaintiff seeks leave of Court to file a Third Amended Complaint
3
("TAC") for the purpose of adding as defendants certain institutions and individuals that
4
exercised command responsibility over or conspired with or aided and abetted subordinates,
5
or person or groups acting in coordination or under their control, to commit acts of torture,
6
cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, extrajudicial punishment, attempted
1
extrajudicial killing, arbitrary detention, non-consensual research and experimentation, and
B

war crimes.
9
As alleged in the TAC to include all pleadings and files each of the additional
10
defendants has actively engaged in torture, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or
11
punishment, extrajudicial punishment, attempted extrajudicial killing, arbitrary detention,
72
forced relocation, non-consensual research and experimentation, and war crimes and crimes
13

l4 against humanity against Plaintiff Oliver B. Mitchell III. The proposed additional defendants,

15
the SRO Housing Corporation and the Volunteers of America, reap financial benefits (federal

T6 funds) from Mitchell' s infringement.

71 The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are personally liable for, or exercised command

18 responsibility over or conspired with or aided and abetted subordinates, or person or groups

79 acting in coordination or under their control, to commit acts of torture, cruel, inhumane or

20 degrading treatment or punishment, extrajudicial punishment, attempted extrajudicial killing,

2L arbitrary detention, non-consensual research and experimentation, and war crimes.

22 Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants are liable under domestic and international law
23 for Plaintiff s injuries, pain and suffering.
24 The Plaintiff allege that Defendants are liable for acts of torture and attempted
25 extrajudicial killing as defined by customary domestic and international law and 18 U.S.C.
26 2441- War Crimes.
21
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable for acts and for a conspiracy to murder.
2B

a
J
NOTICE TO TF{E COURT CASE 2:13cv6030
1
If two or more persons conspire to violate section 1111, 1114, 1116, or 1119 of this title, and
2
one or more of such persons do any overt act to affect the object of the conspiracy, each shall
3
be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life. 18 U.S.C. $ 1117 - Conspi
4
to murder.
5
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable for, and exercised command responsibility
6
over, and conspired to; engage Plaintiff in non-consensual research and experimentation.
1
Good cause exists to grant this motion under the extremely liberal standards of Rule
B

15(a). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (stating that leave to amend "shall be freely given when
9
justice so requires"); see also Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F 3d 7A8, 712
10
(9th Cir. 2001). The allegations of the TAC, if proven, would render the additional defi
11
liable under domestic and international law.
72
Other factors considered by courts in evaluating motions to amend under Rule 15(a)
13

74
similarly militate in favor of permitLing amendment here. As noted, Mitchell has acted

15
cautiously, responsibly and in good faith before adding the National Institute of Health

L6
(NIH), the Federal Bureau of Invesfisation {FBI), the Central Intellisence Asency (CIA),

1'/ the National Securi8 Asency (NSA), the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the Equal

1B Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Denartment of Defense (DOD), the

19 Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), t
20 National Aeronautics and Space Administration C{ASA), the Defense Advanced
2t Research Proiects Asency (DARPA), the SRO Housing Corporation to include Denise

22 Williams in her official capacity, its agents, officers and employees both (past and present),
23 and the Volunteers of America to include Linda Venema in her official capacity, its agents,
24 officers and employees both (past and present) as defendants. Likewise, neither opposing
at
counsel, nor any of the proposed new defendants can credibly claim any unfair prejudice as a
26 result of the proposed amendment. Discovery is still at an early stage in this case, and the
27
proposed amendment has been brought within the time period set by the Court for adding
2B

4
NOTICE TO TFIE COURT CASE 2:13cv6030
1
parties. Indeed, given that the applicable statutes of limitations have not yet even run, the
2
Plaintiff could simply file new, individual cases against each of the proposed additional
3
defendants. Instead, adding them to the current case ensures that the claims against the
4
defendants will be litigated in an efficient and non-duplicative manner.
5
Courts generally consider four factors when evaluating a plaintiff s request to amend a
6
complaint: (1) bad faith or dilatory motive; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing
1
party; and (4) futility of the proposed amendment. Fomanv. Davis,371 U.S. 178, t82
B

(1962); Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Sotlutions, 1nc.,194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999).
9
Each of these four factors support the Plaintiffs request for leave to amend.
10
. The Plaintiff Oliver B. Mitchell IU, has shown its good faith. From the outset of this
11
case, the Plaintiff explained that it might assert claims against one or more additional
L2
Defendants.
13
. The Plaintiffs amendment is timely.
14
. The Plaintiffs amendment will not prejudice the Defendants. This case is at a
15

75 relatively early stage of discovery. The Defendants have not yet produced its documents, and

L1 no depositions have been conducted and discovery hasn't been conducted, thus, the

18 Defendants cannot identify any prejudice from the Plaintiffs amendment.

19
. The Plaintiff could simply file new and separate complaints against each of the

20 proposed defendants. Adding them to the existing suit merely guarantees consistency and

2t reduces the expense for all concerned.

22 . The Plaintiffs amendment alleges a proper claim. The defendants cannot meet the
23 very high burden of showing futility of the Plaintiffs amendment. In fact, the Plaintiff alleges
24 facts showing the necessary elements of claims for compensatory and punitive damages for
25 violations of international and domestic law.
26 As alleged in the pleadings and files each of the additional defendants have actively
z/ enabled, facilitated, and contributed to the deprivation of rights of the plaintiff.
2B

5
NOTICE TO THE COURT CASE 2:13cv6030
1
Accordingly, it is plain that Mitchell has acted with good faith throughout regarding
2
the potential addition of the Defendants as defendants, and has not unduly delayed the instant
a
J
motion to amend. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton,833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987)
4
(finding no bad faith and affirming grant of leave to amend where plaintiff sought to develop
5
evidence of wrongful conduct before asserting claims); Qualcomm, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
6
989 F. Supp. 1048, 1050 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (finding no undue delay where the plaintiff s
1
ongoing investigation and discovery had revealed sufficient information upon which to base
o

new claims for relief).


9
The standard texts on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure stress the historical
10
background underlying all the rules concerning parties, and also the interrelationship between
11
the various rules. Thus, in Federal Practice and Procedure, Wright and Miller, Civil, Vol. 7, $
72
1681, p.319, the author's state:
13
Except in cases involving joinder of defendants in tort actions, misjoinder and
74

15
nonjoinder of parties were fatal defects in actions at common law; a pleading

76 that revealed a joinder defect was subject to attack by general demurrer, motion

I1 in arrest ofjudgment, writ of error, nonsuit, or plea in abatement. In contrast to

1B these severe consequences, the federal equlty rules and the English rules of
79 practice

20 parties. As a result, an action could proceed on its merits despite an initial

2L misjoinder or nonjoinder, whenever the error could be corrected without


22 adversely affecting the parties to the action. "Rule 2l was derived from the

23 federal equlty rules and the English rules of practice existing at the time the
24 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted. It provides the courts with a
25 valuable procedural device that can be used to avoid multiple litigation and to
26 promote liberal joinder of parties. "By providing for the dropping and adding o
27
parties on terms that arejust, Rule 2l furthers the policy of the federal rules to
2B

6
NOTICE TO THE COURT CASE 2:13cv6030
continue and determine on action on its merits whenever that can be done

without prejudice to the parties."


When the court inquires into the good faith of the moving party, it typically will take

account of the movant's delay in seeking the amendment. Courts also consider whether the

proposed amendment is interposed for some improper pu{pose, such as to affect the Court's

jurisdiction or for reasons of litigation tactics. Here, the Defendants cannot make any

showing that Mitchell has acted in anything but good faith in pursuing this amendment.

Mitchell's proposed amendment will not affect this Courl's jurisdiction over this matter, and
if Mitchell had sought some tactical advantage through amendment, it hardly would have
10
explained, in advance, the potential for the amendment to both the Defendants and the Court
11
from the outset of this case.
72
Specifically, in its December 16, 20L6 Complaint (RE: ORDER TO SHOW GOOD
13
CAUSE, DOCKET 68-1) Mitchell expressly reserved the right to add the Nati Institute o
L4

15
Health (I.trIH), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency

76
(CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the Equal

71 Emplo),ment Opportuni8 Commission (EEOC), the Department of Defense (DOD), the

1B Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the

19 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Defense Advanced Research

20 Pro-iects Agency (DARPA), the SRO Housing Corporation to include Denise Williams in her

27 official capacity, its agents, officers and employees both (past and present), and the
22 Volunteers of America to include Linda Venema in her official capacity, its agents, officers
23 and employees both (past and present) as defendants once he had more information about
,A
their contribution to, and facilitation of, Mitchell's infringement.
25 The defendants bear the burden of establishing that prejudice will result from
26 Mitchell's amendment. See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th
21
Cir. 2003). The defendants cannot possibly make such a showing. As noted previously, the
2B

7
NOTICE TO Tm COURT CASE 2:13cv6030
1
defendants have been aware of the possibilify of this amendment since Mitchell first filed
2
suit. No depositions have yet been conducted. Fact discovery has yet to be scheduled
a
J
providing ample opportunity for the additional defendants to participate in any necessary
4
discovery. No other substantive proceedings have taken place that would prejudice the rights
5
of the defendants. Moreover, to date, the additional defendants have ample time to ensure th
6
their interests are aligned and have been protected.
1
Given the early stage of the case and Mitchell's express reservation of his right to
B

amend, the additional defendants can point to no unfair prejudice that will result from the
9
Court's granting of the instant motion. See ABM Indus., Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.,237
10
F.R.D. 225,227 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (holding that defendants were not prejudiced by
11
amendment because litigation was at an early stage, and defendants were not surprised by an
72
new factual allegations). Indeed, as noted earlier, Mitchell could simply file separate
13
complaints against the Defendants, if he chooses to do so, and then coordinate or consolidate
14

15
the cases. As such, the Defendants cannot credibly claim any undue prejudice from the

76
proposed amendment.

71 The final factor considered by Courts under Federal Rule 15 is futility of the proposed

1B amendment. Where, as here, the amended complaint alleges a legally sufficient claim for

19 relief against the Defendants, leave to amend should be granted. Infringement may be
20 imposed where the defendant (1) possesses the right and ability to supervise the infringing

2L activity, and (2) has a direct financial interest in the exploitation of the Plaintiff.
22 Although here Mitchell merely needs to show that he can allege sufficient claims, and
23 need not provide an), supporting evidence, Mitchell [h]as supplied such evidence, via the
24 pleadings and filings with the Court, and he confirms that his allegations are both sufficient
atr
LJ
and true.
26 Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully submits that, pursuant to Rule l5(a)(2), the
21
Court grant the instant motion to amend to add additional defendants.
2B

8
NOTICE TO THE COURT CASE 2:13cv6030
1
Executed on June 14 2017 at Los Angeles. California.
2

5
OLIVERB. MITCHELL III
6
622WALL STREET
1
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORMA 90014
B

(s62) 7t9-3872
9
INPRO PER
10

11

L2

13

L4

15

16

17

18

79

20

27

z-1

24

25

26

28

9
NOTICE TO THE COLIRT CASE 2:13cv6030