Meredith v. Overley et al

Filing 67

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 46 Motion to Amend Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/25/2014. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DWAYNE MEREDITH,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

CASE No. 1:12-cv-00455-LJO-MJS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO AMEND COMPLAINT

v.
(ECF No. 46)
D. OVERLEY, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Dwayne Meredith is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The action

19

proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against Defendants Overley,

20

Benevidez, and Gamboa for deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm in

21

violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 9.)

22

On September 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the operative complaint

23

by adding a new defendant and a new claim that the new defendant had filed a false

24

declaration in support of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff also moved to increase

25

the requested punitive damages in light of the new claim. (ECF No. 36.) The Court

26

denied the motion on a finding that the new claim was not an extension of the events

27

giving rise to this action. (ECF No. 45.)

28

On February 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a second motion to amend seeking only to
1

1

increase the requested punitive damages. (ECF No. 46.) The additional damages are

2

based on the same conduct addressed in the first motion to amend. (Id.) “While leave

3

to permit supplemental pleading is favored, it cannot be used to introduce a separate,

4

distinct and new cause of action.” Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona v. Neely,

5

130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The

6

Court has already determined that the allegedly wrongful declaration has no relation to

7

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim. Damages based thereon similarly fail to relate to

8

those claims. Plaintiff may not seek relief in this action based on events unrelated to

9

those underlying this case.

10
11

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to amend the First Amended Complaint (ECF No.
46), filed on February 14, 2014, is DENIED.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 25, 2014

/s/

15

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2