McCoy v. Stratton et al

Filing 65

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/8/15 ORDERING that Plaintiffs motion to file a supplemental complaint (Doc. No. 49 ) is DENIED without prejudice to raising the proposed new claims in a separate civil action; Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 48 ) is DENIED; Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 63 ) is GRANTED; and within 21 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition to defendants motion for summary judgment.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVON E. McCOY,

12
13
14

No. 2:12-cv-1137 WBS DAD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

J. STRATTON et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action seeking relief under

18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental complaint,

19

which defendants have opposed.

20

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

21

In his motion to file a supplemental complaint, plaintiff seeks leave to name additional

22

defendants in this action for their alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.

23

Plaintiff contends that the events that he complains of in his proposed supplemental complaint

24

took place after he filed his original complaint. (Pl.’s Mot. to Supp. at 1-2.) Defendants have

25

opposed plaintiff’s motion and argue that the court would not serve justice by allowing plaintiff to

26

file his proposed supplemental complaint, which names eleven new defendants and asserts claims

27

that are wholly unrelated to the pending claims in this action. (Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. to

28

Supp. at 1-12.)
1

1

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15(d), “the court may, on just terms, permit a

2

party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that

3

happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). “While

4

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

5

distinct and new cause of action.” Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona v. Neely, 130 F.3d

6

400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). See also Contreraz v.

7

Stockbridge, No. 1:06-cv-01817 LJO SKO PC, 2012 WL 396503 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2012)

8

(denying plaintiff’s motion to file supplemental complaint because his proposed supplement

9

allegations gave rise to a new causes of action); Gonzales v. Mason, No. C 07-180 SI (pr), 2008

10

WL 2079195 at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2008) (denying plaintiff’s motion to file supplemental

11

complaint because the proposed supplement included different defendants and new claims).

12

Here, plaintiff’s proposed supplemental complaint should be the subject of new complaint

13

filed in a separate civil rights action from this action. Specifically, plaintiff’s proposed

14

supplemental claims are separate and distinct from his current claims against the named

15

defendants. As defense counsel aptly observes, plaintiff is proceeding in this action on an

16

amended complaint against defendants Barnes, Chavez, Epp, Ding Felder, Grinde, Hughes,

17

Martinez, Slaughter, Stratton, Sweeney, and Wells for their alleged excessive force or retaliatory

18

conduct against him while he was briefly housed at CSP-Sacramento pending a court date

19

requiring his appearance. Plaintiff now wishes to supplement his complaint with allegations

20

against eleven new defendants for their alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical

21

needs while he was housed at California Correctional Institution. Allowing plaintiff to pursue his

22

proposed supplemental claims in this action, which has now reached the summary judgment

23

stage, would clearly not promote judicial efficiency, the goal of Rule 15(d). See Planned

24

Parenthood, 130 F.3d at 402. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a) (“A party asserting a claim ... may

25

join, [ ] as independent or as alternative claims, as many claims ... as the party has against an

26

opposing party”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (joinder of defendants not permitted unless both

27

commonality and same transaction requirements are satisfied). Finally, there are no “technical

28

obstacles” to plaintiff bringing a separate action against the new defendants listed in his proposed
2

1

supplemental complaint. See Planned Parenthood, 130 F.3d at 402. Accordingly, the court will

2

deny plaintiff's motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint without prejudice to plaintiff

3

raising the proposed new claims in a separate civil action.1

4

OTHER MATTERS

5

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel and a motion for an extension

6

of time to oppose defendants’ motion for summary judgment. As to plaintiff’s motion for

7

appointment of counsel, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack

8

authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United

9

States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district

10

court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell

11

v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36

12

(9th Cir. 1990).

13

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s

14

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in

15

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

16

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances

17

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not

18

establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of

19

counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

20

Turning now to plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, plaintiff requests a twenty-one

21

day extension of time to file his opposition to defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment.

22

Good cause appearing, the court will grant plaintiff’s request.

23

CONCLUSION

24
25

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
/////

26
1

27
28

Moreover, any separate action plaintiff elects to file based on the allegations in his
supplemental complaint should be filed in the Fresno Division of this Court since the alleged
constitutional violations took place at California Correctional Institution, which is in Kern
County. See Local Rule 120(d).
3

1
2

1. Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental complaint (Doc. No. 49) is denied without
prejudice to raising the proposed new claims in a separate civil action;

3

2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 48) is denied;

4

3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’ motion

5
6

for summary judgment (Doc. No. 63) is granted; and
4. Within twenty-one days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an

7

opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

8

Dated: October 8, 2015

9
10
11

DAD:9
mcco1137.mtsd

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4