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)
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?