Riley v. Tallerico et al

Filing 39

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Ex Parte 38 Motion to Relate Back, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/3/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8
9
10

Case No. 1:16-cv-01189-EPG (PC)

SHANNON RILEY,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE MOTION TO RELATE BACK

Plaintiff,
v.

(ECF NO. 38)

TALLERICO, et al.,
Defendants.

11
12
13

Shannon Riley (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

14

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 29, 2017, Plaintiff

15

filed an “Ex Parte Motion to Relate Back, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15([c])(1)(C), ([a])(2)[]” (“the

16

Motion”). While Plaintiff titled the Motion “Motion to Relate Back,” Plaintiff asks that he be

17

allowed to amend his complaint, and that he be given a thirty day extension to do so.

18

Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. If Plaintiff wants to file an amended complaint, he

19

may file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, along with a copy of the proposed

20

Fourth Amended Complaint. The motion should explain why Plaintiff needs to amend his

21

complaint, and the proposed changes. Plaintiff does not need leave of the Court to file the

22

motion, and he does not need to ask for an extension of time.

23

However, the Court notes that it would not be inclined to grant Plaintiff’s motion for

24

leave to amend. In screening Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, the Court stated: “The

25

Court will not provide further leave to amend the complaint. This is Plaintiff’s Third Amended

26

Complaint. The Court provided significant legal standards and guidance in its screening order

27

dated January 25, 2017. (ECF No. 20). Given the multiple amendments and the legal guidance

28

that was provided, the Court finds that further amendment would be futile.” (ECF No. 24, p.
1

1

10).

2

Moreover, the Motion lists ten defendants Plaintiff wishes to add to his complaint,

3

including several doctors, an associate warden, and the warden. It appears that all ten of these

4

defendants were listed in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, which was dismissed because

5

it did not “include ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

6

to relief,’ and because it include[d] claims against multiple defendants that [did] not ‘aris[e] out

7

of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences’ or involve ‘any

8

question of law or fact common to all defendants.’” (ECF No. 20, p. 8). Based on the

9

representations in the Motion, it appears that Plaintiff may be attempting to add claims and

10
11
12

defendants that are not related to the claims and defendants in the current complaint.1
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED
without prejudice.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 3, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

1

If Plaintiff chooses to file a motion for leave to amend, Plaintiff should refer to the standards the Court
provided in the screening order entered on January 25, 2017 (ECF No. 20), and the screening order entered on
April 24, 2017 (ECF No. 24).
2