Riley v. Tallerico et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:16-cv-01189-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE MOTION TO RELATE BACK
(ECF NO. 38)
TALLERICO, et al.,
Shannon Riley (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 29, 2017, Plaintiff
filed an “Ex Parte Motion to Relate Back, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15([c])(1)(C), ([a])(2)” (“the
Motion”). While Plaintiff titled the Motion “Motion to Relate Back,” Plaintiff asks that he be
allowed to amend his complaint, and that he be given a thirty day extension to do so.
Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. If Plaintiff wants to file an amended complaint, he
may file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, along with a copy of the proposed
Fourth Amended Complaint. The motion should explain why Plaintiff needs to amend his
complaint, and the proposed changes. Plaintiff does not need leave of the Court to file the
motion, and he does not need to ask for an extension of time.
However, the Court notes that it would not be inclined to grant Plaintiff’s motion for
leave to amend. In screening Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, the Court stated: “The
Court will not provide further leave to amend the complaint. This is Plaintiff’s Third Amended
Complaint. The Court provided significant legal standards and guidance in its screening order
dated January 25, 2017. (ECF No. 20). Given the multiple amendments and the legal guidance
that was provided, the Court finds that further amendment would be futile.” (ECF No. 24, p.
Moreover, the Motion lists ten defendants Plaintiff wishes to add to his complaint,
including several doctors, an associate warden, and the warden. It appears that all ten of these
defendants were listed in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, which was dismissed because
it did not “include ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief,’ and because it include[d] claims against multiple defendants that [did] not ‘aris[e] out
of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences’ or involve ‘any
question of law or fact common to all defendants.’” (ECF No. 20, p. 8). Based on the
representations in the Motion, it appears that Plaintiff may be attempting to add claims and
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
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 3, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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).
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?