Howard Cochran v. Mark Wardian

MEMORANDUM

Arizona state prisoner Howard Cochran appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend. Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 977 (9th Cir. 2013). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Denial of Cochran’s motion to amend his complaint with respect to his excessive force claim against Wardian was not an abuse of discretion because amendment would have been futile. See Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir.2004) (“Futility alone can justify the denial of a motion to amend.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-09 (9th Cir.1992) (the “good cause” standard of Rule 16 controls after a scheduling order is established).

However, denial of Cochran’s motion to amend his complaint with respect to his excessive force claim against Feist and Ramsey was…