Powell v. Madden, et al.

Filing 42

ORDER Regarding Motion at Docket 36 , signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 2/18/14: The Addendum at Docket 36, treated as motion to amend the complaint, is DENIED. (Hellings, J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TONY EDWARD POWELL,
Case No. 1:13-cv-00057-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER REGARDING
MOTION AT DOCKET 36

vs.
MADDEN, et al.,
Defendants.

At Docket 36 Plaintiff Tony Edward Powell, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, filed
a document entitled “Addendum” in which he moves the Court to add ten (10) additional
Defendants. At Docket 39 Defendants have opposed Powell’s motion. Liberally construing
Powell’s “Addendum” as the functional equivalent of a motion to amend the complaint as
it must,1 it will be denied.
Powell’s moving papers, without stating any factual basis, simply allege that the
additional defendants acted with reckless and deliberate disregard of his constitutionally
protected rights under the guise of state law. It is axiomatic that mere conclusory
allegations, unsupported by a factual underpinning, are insufficient to support a claim for
relief.2 Although, as noted above, prisoner pro se pleadings are given the benefit of liberal

1

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Porter v. Ollison,
620 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2010).
2

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009); Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6).

ORDER [Re: Motion at Docket 36]
Powell v. Madden, 1:13-cv-00057-RRB – 1

construction, Powell’s “Addendum” falls far short of even the most rudimentary
requirements of notice pleading.
Accordingly, the Addendum at Docket 36, treated as motion to amend the
complaint, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of February, 2014.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER [Re: Motion at Docket 36]
Powell v. Madden, 1:13-cv-00057-RRB – 2