Carlos Manuel Flores v. Corcoran State Prison et al
Filing
20
ORDER DENYING Motion to Amend and Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief; ORDER GRANTING Request for Copy of Complaint 17 ; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk to Send Plaintiff a Copy of His Original Complaint 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/3/13. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CARLOS MANUEL FLORES,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
CORCORAN STATE PRISON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
1:12-cv-00977-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
AMEND AND MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
(Doc. 17.)
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR
COPY OF COMPLAINT
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO
SEND PLAINTIFF A COPY OF HIS
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
(Doc. 1.)
17
18
19
20
I.
BACKGROUND
21
Carlos Manuel Flores ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
22
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint
23
commencing this action on June 18, 2012. (Doc. 1.) The parties have consented to Magistrate
24
Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Docs. 5, 15.)
25
The court screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A and entered an order on
26
August 24, 2012, dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend.
27
(Doc. 6.) On November 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 7.) This
28
case now proceeds with the First Amended Complaint against defendant Dr. Moon, for failure
1
1
to provide adequate medical care to Plaintiff, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id.) This
2
case is presently in the discovery phase.
3
On September 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint. (Doc. 17.)
4
Plaintiff also seeks to compel defendants to stop retaliating against him and to return his
5
property. (Id.) Plaintiff also requests a copy of his original Complaint. (Id.) Defendant has
6
not filed an opposition.
7
II.
8
9
MOTION TO AMEND
A.
Legal Standards
1.
Rule 15(a) – Amended Complaint
10
Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the
11
party=s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.
12
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written
13
consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Id.
14
ARule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend >shall be freely given when justice so
15
requires.=@ AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir.
16
2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts Aneed not grant leave to amend where
17
the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an
18
undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.@ Id. The factor of A>[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is
19
insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.=@ Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,
20
Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712,13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58
21
(9th Cir. 1999)).
22
2.
Rule 15(d) – Supplemental Complaint
23
A supplemental complaint adds allegations to the complaint of events occurring after
24
the original complaint was filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Under Rule 15(d), the court may, on
25
just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction,
26
occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented. Id. A
27
party may only file a supplemental complaint with leave of court. Id. When considering
28
whether to allow a supplemental complaint, the Court considers factors such as whether
2
1
allowing supplementation would serve the interests of judicial economy; whether there is
2
evidence of delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant; whether amendment
3
would impose undue prejudice upon the opposing party; and whether amendment would be
4
futile. See San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. United States Department of the
5
Interior, 236 F.R.D. 491, 497 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467 (9th Cir.
6
1988), Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), and Planned Parenthood of S. Ariz. v. Neely, 130
7
F.3d 400 (9th Cir. 1997)).
Plaintiff’s Motion
8
B.
9
Plaintiff requests leave to amend the complaint to add claims of retaliation arising from
10
events commencing on August 27, 2013. Plaintiff alleges that unnamed defendants at Corcoran
11
State Prison (CSP) retaliated against him for filing the present civil rights action by forcibly
12
transferring him from CSP to Kern Valley State Prison without his property, then forcibly
13
transferring him back to CSP and involuntarily housing him in a mental health unit. Plaintiff
14
also alleges that the unnamed defendants stole his property and told him it was lost. Plaintiff
15
also alleges that defendants used excessive force against him through use of handcuffs and leg
16
irons.
17
C.
18
Because Plaintiff has already amended the complaint once, and Plaintiff has not
19
obtained written consent from Defendant to amend the complaint, Plaintiff requires leave of
20
court to file a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff=s new claims for retaliation arise from
21
events occurring after this case was filed. To allow such claims in an amended complaint
22
would be futile, because the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires Plaintiff to
23
exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit, which would be impossible for claims
24
arising after the suit was filed. 42 U.C.C. § 1997e(a); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211, 127
25
S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002)
26
(emphasis added). Section 1997e(a) mandates that "[n]o action shall be brought ... until [the
27
prisoner's] administrative remedies ... are exhausted," 42 U.S.C. ' 1997e(a), and Arequires that a
28
prisoner exhaust administrative remedies before submitting any papers to the federal courts,"
Discussion
3
1
Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added). Therefore, Plaintiff’s
2
motion to amend the complaint shall be denied.
3
Such after-occurring claims are properly brought in a supplemental complaint.
4
However, under Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff may not bring
5
unrelated claims in the same complaint. AThe controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P.
6
18(a) >A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or
7
third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal,
8
equitable, or maritime, as the party has against an opposing party.= Thus multiple claims against
9
a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated
10
Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different
11
suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit
12
produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees-for the Prison
13
Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may
14
file without prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g).@ George v. Smith, 507 F.3d
15
605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
16
This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims that he was denied adequate medical care
17
by Defendant Dr. Moon. Plaintiff’s new claims concern retaliation occurring after the original
18
Complaint was filed. Because Plaintiff has not named any of the defendants who retaliated
19
against him, or alleged facts showing a causal connection between the filing of this action and
20
defendants’ retaliation, the court cannot make a determination that the new claims are related to
21
Plaintiff’s prior claims. It would be futile to allow Plaintiff to supplement the complaint in this
22
action with unrelated claims. Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to file a supplemental
23
complaint, such request must be denied. Plaintiff is advised that he may file a new case to
24
bring unrelated claims.
25
III.
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
26
A.
27
AA preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.@
28
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation
Legal Standard
4
1
omitted). AA plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to
2
succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
3
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public
4
interest.@ Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear
5
showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
6
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for
7
preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary
8
matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S.
9
95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for
10
Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the
11
Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter
12
in question.
13
3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the
14
Arelief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of
15
the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the
16
Federal right.@
Id.
Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. '
Plaintiff’s Motion
17
B.
18
Plaintiff seeks a court order compelling prison officials to stop retaliating against him
19
and to return his personal property. The order requested by Plaintiff would not remedy any of
20
the claims upon which this action proceeds. This action now proceeds against defendant Dr.
21
Moon for denying Plaintiff adequate medical care, based on events occurring before he filed
22
this action on June 18, 2012. Plaintiff now requests a court order protecting him from present
23
and future actions. Because such an order would not remedy any of the claims upon which this
24
action proceeds, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and
25
Plaintiff=s motion must be denied.
26
///
27
///
28
///
5
1
IV.
REQUEST FOR COPY OF COMPLAINT
2
Plaintiff requests the court to provide him with a copy of his original Complaint and
3
exhibits filed on June 18, 2012. Plaintiff asserts that he requires a copy of the Complaint and
4
exhibits because his copy was lost or stolen by prison officials through no fault of his own.
5
Plaintiff is advised that the Clerk does not ordinarily provide free copies of case
6
documents to parties. The Clerk charges $.50 per page for copies of documents. See 28 U.S.C.
7
' 1914(a). Copies of up to twenty pages may be made by the Clerk's Office at this Court upon
8
written request and prepayment of the copy fees. The fact that the Court has granted leave for
9
Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis does not entitle him to free copies of documents from the
10
Court. Under 28 U.S.C. ' 2250, the Clerk is not required to furnish copies without cost to an
11
indigent petitioner except by order of the judge.
12
In this instance, in light of the fact that Plaintiff asserts that his property was lost or
13
stolen through no fault of his own, and because Plaintiff’s Complaint is not voluminous, the
14
Court shall make a one-time exception and provide Plaintiff with a free copy of his original
15
Complaint.
16
V.
CONCLUSION
17
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
18
1.
Plaintiff=s motion to amend, filed on September 5, 2013, is DENIED;
19
2.
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED;
20
3.
Plaintiff’s request for a copy of his original Complaint is GRANTED; and
21
4.
The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of his original Complaint, filed on
22
June 18, 2012 (Doc. 1).
23
24
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
27
28
December 3, 2013
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
6
1
6i0kij8d
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?