(PS) Harrell v. Belyea, 2:15-cv-00576

Harrell sued after his April 17, 2014 detention/arrest at Walmart and subsequent criminal prosecution that was later dismissed; original complaint named multiple individuals and entities including Officer Michelle Belyea.
The court screened the pleadings and allowed only claims against Officer Belyea for unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution (based on an alleged falsified report); other named defendants were effectively dismissed.
Belyea answered in April 2017; the court set discovery to close May 9, 2018 and dispositive motion deadline July 9, 2018.
In March 2018 Harrell moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) adding Officer Rebecca Belk, the City of Fairfield, Solano County, and Wal‑Mart Corp., and asserting supervisory and Monell theories and vicarious liability against Wal‑Mart.
Belyea opposed. The magistrate judge found the amendment untimely, prejudicial, and legally futile (including statute of limitations bars) and recommended denial of leave to amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether leave to amend should be granted despite court deadlines	Harrell sought to add Belk and municipal/corporate defendants and new §1983 theories, asserting recent realization and delayed discovery	Belyea argued amendment was late, would prejudice defense, and was legally deficient	Denied: amendment untimely and prejudicial given known facts and discovery schedule
Whether amendment would unduly prejudice defendant	Harrell did not address prejudice beyond general need to add parties	Belyea argued reopening discovery and restarting litigation would be prejudicial	Held prejudicial: would require resetting schedule and additional discovery
Whether proposed new defendants/claims are futile on the merits (Monell, supervisory liability, vicarious liability)	Harrell asserted Monell and supervisory liability theories against City and Belk; vicarious liability against Wal‑Mart	Belyea argued Wal‑Mart is not a state actor; Monell requires a policy/custom; supervisory liability is not an independent basis under §1983	Futile: Wal‑Mart not liable under §1983; Monell not pleaded; supervisory liability insufficient
Whether claims against Officer Belk are time‑barred	Harrell implied delayed discovery tolling and recent realization	Belyea argued accrual at arrest (April 17, 2014) and two‑year California limitations thus expired April 17, 2016	Held time‑barred: §1983 claim accrued at arrest and proposed addition in 2018 is untimely

DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183 (use of factors to review leave to amend)
AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946 (timeliness/undue delay inquiry)
Acri v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 781 F.2d 1393 (late amendments asserting known theories disfavored)
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980 (prejudice from reopening discovery)
Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080 (additional discovery causes prejudice)
Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815 (futility alone can justify denial of leave to amend)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (§1983 liability requires action under color of state law)
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (limits on supervisory liability under §1983)
Venegas v. Wagner, 704 F.2d 1144 (false arrest claims accrue at time of arrest)
Action Apartment Ass’n, Inc. v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 509 F.3d 1020 (state statute of limitations governs §1983 claims)