Owens v. Rapoport

Filing 26

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/2/2017 DENYING plaintiff's 25 motion for correction. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THEON OWENS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:16-cv-00273 TLN CKD P v. ORDER ELENA RAPOPORT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This pro se prisoner action proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) filed 18 November 10, 2016. (ECF No. 18.) Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to correct the SAC. 19 (ECF No. 25.) While the SAC describes certain events as happening in 2015 and 2016, plaintiff 20 states that they actually occurred in 2012.1 (Id.) In an effort to minimize confusion, he seeks to 21 add to the SAC several pages of pleading that include the correct dates, in place of those pages 22 that include the incorrect dates. (Id.) Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for supplemental pleading with 23 24 leave of court. However, such pleading is intended to add events or transactions that happened 25 after the original pleading was filed. This is not the case here: Plaintiff merely seeks to correct a 26 handful of erroneous dates in the pleading. Most of the dates in the SAC are correctly listed as 27 28 1 Specifically, plaintiff states that ¶ 30, ¶45, ¶ 50, and ¶ 61 incorrectly list dates in 2016 or 2015, instead of 2012. (Id. at 1.) 1 1 2012, and record documents will clarify the dates of alleged events. In reviewing the docket, 2 defendants will learn that plaintiff, a pro se litigant, acknowledges a handful of inadvertent minor 3 errors in the SAC. Nothing further should be necessary, and adding new pages to the SAC may 4 create more confusion than it solves. 5 6 Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for correction (ECF No. 25) is denied. Dated: March 2, 2017 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2 / owen0273.supp 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?