Sessing v. Beard, et al.

Filing 134

ORDER on Plaintiff's Post-Termination Motions; Clerk to Terminate All Pending Motions re 118 , 120 , 123 , 125 , 127 , 128 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/3/17. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NATHAN SESSING,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S POSTTERMINATION MOTIONS
(ECF Nos. 118, 120, 123, 127, & 128)

STU SHERMAN, et al.,
Defendant.

15

1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS (PC)

CLERK TO TERMINATE ALL PENDING
MOTIONS

16
17
18

I.

Procedural History

19

Plaintiff is a prisoner who proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights

20

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 alleging the violation of his First Amendment free

21

exercise rights. His claim arose from the promulgation of a policy which prohibited the

22

construction of new worship grounds at the California Substance Abuse Treatment

23

Facility (“CSATF”), which prevented Plaintiff from exercising his outdoor, fire-centric

24

Odinist religion. (ECF No. 34)

25

On December 20, 2016, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued

26

findings and recommendations (“F&R”) to dismiss Plaintiff’s case without leave to amend

27

for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 110.) The dismissal was based on the fact that the

28
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

policy Plaintiff challenged had since been discontinued, as well as the fact that Plaintiff
had since been transferred from the offending institution. (Id.) As Plaintiff sought only
injunctive relief, subsequent events had rendered Plaintiff’s claims moot. (Id.) The parties
were granted fourteen days to file their objections. On January 9, 2017, having received
no objections, the undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations in full and
dismissed the case. (ECF No. 116.) Judgement was entered that same day. (ECF No.
117.)
Plaintiff then submitted numerous post-termination motions and filings to the

8
9

District Court:
1)

10

On January 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to
file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s F&R (ECF No. 118), and on

11

February 13, 2017, filed his objections (ECF No. 122);
12
2)

On February 6, 2017, he filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment

13
(ECF No. 120); on February 16, 2017, Defendants filed an opposition to
14
the same;
15

3)

16

supplemental complaint (ECF No. 123), on February 22, 2017, he

17

lodged a supplemental complaint (ECF No. 126), and also on February

18

22, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to strike the same (ECF No. 125);

19

4)

20

On February 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for Court action (ECF No.
127); and

21

5)

22

On March 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for a thirty day extension of
time to file a reply to Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to alter

23
24

On February 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a

the judgment (ECF No. 128).
II.

Plaintiff’s Late Filed Objections

25

Plaintiff states that he did not receive the Magistrate Judge’s F&R until fourteen

26

days after they were served, and was thus unable to timely file his objections. (ECF No.

27

118.) In the interest of fairness, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of

28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6

time to file objections. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds them to lack
merit. Indeed, his objections are not actually objections, but rather new arguments
stating why Plaintiff should be permitted to file a supplemental complaint to add new
facts occurring after the case was filed. For the reasons stated below in subsection IV,
this request will be denied.
III.

Plaintiff moves to amend the Court’s judgment under Federal Rule of Civil

7
8
9

Procedure 59(e) on the grounds that he did not have an opportunity to object to the
Magistrate Judge’s F&R prior to the dismissal of his case.
“It is appropriate for a court to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) if “(1) the

10
11

Motion to Alter or Amend Judgement

district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court
committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there

12

is an intervening change in controlling law.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d

13
734, 740 (9th Cir.2001).
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

None of these circumstances exist here. As stated in the

preceding subsection, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections, and found them to
lack merit. There is no indication that, had Plaintiff’s objections been timely filed and
considered by this Court, the outcome of the case would have been any different.
Therefore, the motion to alter the judgment will be denied. As such, Plaintiff’s motion for
an extension of time to file a reply to Defendants’ opposition to said motion is also
denied.
IV.

Leave to File Supplemental Complaint
Plaintiff seeks leave to file a supplemental complaint, citing the reasons put forth

in his objections to the F&R. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) permits a party, with
leave of the Court, to file a supplemental complaint setting out any transaction,
occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.
Rule 15(d) does not require the moving party to satisfy a transactional test, but there
must still be a relationship between the claim in the original pleading and the claims
sought to be added. Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 474 (9th Cir. 1988). Thus, A[w]hile

28
3

1

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

2

separate, distinct and new cause of action.@ Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona v.

3

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

4

When new parties are added to the pleading, those individuals must be connected to the

5

original claims. See Griffin v. County Sch. Bd. of Prince Edward Cnty., 377 U.S. 218,

6

226–27 (1964).
Here, it is clear that Plaintiff’s supplemental pleading seeks to add a new and

7
8
9
10
11
12

distinct cause of action against new Defendants. Plaintiff’s original pleading challenged a
2012 policy disallowing the construction of new worship grounds at the California
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”). That policy, as everyone concedes, has
been discontinued. Furthermore, Plaintiff is no longer housed at CSATF, and would
therefore not benefit from any injunctive relief implemented there.
By comparison, Plaintiff’s supplemental pleading challenges a completely new

13
14
15
16

policy, implemented in 2015, that permits the construction of new worship grounds at
CDCR institutions generally, but imposes new restrictions that Plaintiff contends creates
an even greater burden on his religious exercise.
As Plaintiff has been advised on at least two separate occasions, these new

17
claims belong in a separate lawsuit. (See ECF Nos. 43 & 110). The motion to file a
18
supplemental complaint will be denied.
19
V.

Motion for Court Action

20
Finally, Plaintiff filed a motion effectively inquiring into the status of the above21
listed filings. (ECF No. 127.) To the extent those filings are disposed of by this order,
22

Plaintiff’s motion for Court action is rendered moot, and therefore will be denied.

23
VI.

Conclusion

24
This case is now closed. If Plaintiff seeks further review of his claims, he should
25
pursue an appeal.
26
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
27

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file objections to the F&R (ECF

28
4

No. 118) is GRANTED;

1
2

2. Plaintiff’s motion to alter the judgment (ECF No. 120) is DENIED;

3

3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply to Defendants’

4

opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to alter the judgment (ECF No. 128) is DENIED;

5

4. Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental complaint (ECF No. 123) is DENIED;

6

5. Plaintiff’s motion for Court action (ECF No. 127) is DENIED; and

7

6. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all other pending motions as
MOOT.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

May 3, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5