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
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?