Wahl v. Sutton
Filing
14
ORDER DISREGARDING Plaintiff's Supplemental Pleading 8 ; ORDER DENYING 9 Motion to Supplement ; ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff Leave to Amend, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/13/2017. (30-Day Deadline for First Amended Complaint) (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PETER GERARD WAHL,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
Defendant.
16
ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING (ECF No. 8)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO SUPPLEMENT (ECF No. 9)
SUTTON,
15
Case No. 1:16-cv-01576-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO
AMEND
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
17
18
19
Plaintiff Peter Gerard Wahl (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
20
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on October 19, 2016.
21
(ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 7.)
22
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
23
governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
24
1915A(a). Before the Court could screen Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff filed a supplemental
25
pleading on November 4, 2016 (ECF No. 8) and a motion to supplement on December 7, 2016
26
(ECF No. 9).
27
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) states, “[o]n motion and reasonable notice, the court
28
1
1
may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction,
2
occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” Fed. R.
3
Civ. P. 15(d). “While leave to permit supplemental pleadings is favored, it cannot be used to
4
introduce a separate, distinct and new cause of action.” Planned Parenthood of So. Arizona v.
5
Neely, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
6
Upon review, Plaintiff’s supplemental pleading does not set forth any facts that arose after
7
the filing of his original complaint. Plaintiff instead seeks class action certification, injunctive
8
relief for law library access and expedited transfers, and an opportunity to amend. Plaintiff also
9
appears to allege retaliation, among other new causes of action. However, Plaintiff may not use a
10
supplemental pleading to introduce new and separate causes of action. See Planned Parenthood,
11
130 F.3d at 402. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s supplemental complaint shall be disregarded.
12
As for Plaintiff’s motion to supplement, it is one page in length and seeks only to apprise
13
the Court of the recently passed Proposition 57 in California. Plaintiff’s motion alleges no new
14
facts that arose subsequent to the original complaint to support a supplemental pleading. See Fed.
15
R. Civ. P. 15(d). Additionally, the information about Proposition 57 is unnecessary. Plaintiff need
16
not submit legal authorities in order to plead a cognizable claim for relief. Cf. Johnson v. City of
17
Shelby, Miss., 135 S.Ct. 346, 346-47 (2014) (per curiam) (holding that federal pleading rules do
18
not require a perfect statement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted); see also Fed. R.
19
Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (complaint requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
20
pleader is entitled to relief”). For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to supplement shall be denied.
21
Given that Plaintiff seeks an opportunity to amend, the Court advises Plaintiff that he may
22
amend his complaint once as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) (“A party may amend its
23
pleading once as a matter of course…”). Plaintiff is reminded that an amended complaint should
24
be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what each named defendant did that led to the
25
deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009).
26
Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief
27
above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
28
(citations omitted).
2
1
Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated
2
claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no
3
“buckshot” complaints).
4
Finally, the Court advises Plaintiff that an amended complaint supersedes the original
5
complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Therefore,
6
Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or
7
superseded pleading,” Local Rule 220, and should be filed within thirty (30) days of service of
8
this order.
9
10
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:
1. Plaintiff’s supplemental pleading, filed November 4, 2016 (ECF No. 8), is
11
DISREGARDED;
12
2. Plaintiff’s motion to supplement, filed December 7, 2016 (ECF No. 9), is DENIED;
13
3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff may file a first
14
15
amended complaint; and
4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the time specified by this order,
16
the Court will screen Plaintiff’s original complaint, filed on October 19, 2016,
17
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
18
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
January 13, 2017
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?