Bradford v. Yates et al

Filing 12

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Supplement Amended Complaint, Without Prejudice (Doc. 10 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 4/15/2011. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

DARRELL BRADFORD,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-02074-SKO PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO SUPPLEMENT AMENDED COMPLAINT,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.
JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

13

(Doc. 10)

Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Darrell Bradford, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

16

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 9, 2010. On January 24, 2011,

17

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint as a matter of right, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), and on February

18

25, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to supplement his amended complaint, Fed. R. Civ.

19

P. 15(d).

20

Although Plaintiff states that he is requesting leave to supplement to add eleven additional

21

defendants based on new events, his amended complaint and his proposed supplemental complaint

22

identify the same defendants and the two complaints are virtually identical. Because the Court is

23

unable to discern the grounds for supplementing, Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY DENIED, without

24

prejudice, and his proposed supplemental complaint shall not be filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d).

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated:
ie14hj

April 15, 2011

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
1