Patterson v. Kern County Sheriff's Officer

Filing 9

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/26/2012 denying 8 MOTION to Seek Compensation for Punitive Damages and Mental, Medical Relief. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
JAMES R. PATTERSON,

CASE NO.

1:12-CV-0132-MJS (PC)

9
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO SEEK COMPENSATION FOR
PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND MENTAL,
MEDICAL RELIEF

10
v.

11
12

KERN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
(ECF No. 8)
Defendant.

13

/
14
15

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

16

On January 25, 2012, Plaintiff James Patterson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se

17

and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No.

18

1.)

19

On February 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Seek Compensation for

20

Punitive Damages and Mental, Medical Relief. (ECF No. 8.) The Court interprets the

21

motion as a request to amend the damage claim in Plaintiff’s complaint.

22

II.

APPLICABLE LAW

23

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend his

24

pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.

25

Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court, or by written consent of the

26

adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a).

27

“Rule 15(a) is liberal and leave to amend shall be given when justice so requires.

28

Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006)
-1-

1

(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)). “In determining whether to grant leave to amend, the court

2

considers five factors: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party;

3

(4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended his

4

complaint. Bolbol v. City of Daly City, 754 F.Supp.2d 1095, 1119 (N.D.Cal. November 17,

5

2010) (citing Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004)).

6

Amended pleadings must be complete within themselves without reference to

7

another pleading. Partial amendments are not permissible. Local Rules for the United

8

States District Court - Eastern District of California, Rule 220.

9

III.

ANALYSIS

10

Plaintiff’s Motion to amend is deficient in several respects.

11

The proposed amendment is not a complete in and of itself. As noted, amended

12

pleadings must be complete within themselves without reference to another pleading. Any

13

pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

14

is entitled to relief ....“ Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required,

15

but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

16

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937,

17

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A plaintiff

18

must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible

19

on its face.’“ Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant

20

committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal

21

conclusions are not. Id. at 1949–50. Here, Plaintiff improperly asks to file an amendment

22

to his underlying pleading or a partial amendment.

23

The proposed amendment, if intended to supplement the Complaint, fails because

24

it may not “supplement” as to events,occurring prior to the date of the Complaint.

25

Fed.R.Civ.P 15 (d).

26

No responsive pleading or motion has been filed in this matter. Plaintiff, at the

27

present time, is not required to seek leave of the Court in order to file an amended

28

complaint that complies with the requirements noted above.
-2-

1 IV.

ORDER

2

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seek

3 Compensation for Punitive Damages and Mental, Medical Relief, (ECF No. 8), is DENIED.
4
5 IT IS SO ORDERED.
6 Dated:
ci4d6
7

February 26, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-