(PC) Morgan v. Sacramento Co. Department of Health Service et al

Filing 9

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/8/2019 ORDERING the Clerk to strike #6 Second Copy of Plaintiff's Complaint from the record; DENYING #8 Motion to Supplement the Complaint; and GRANTING Plaintiff 30 days of the service of this order to file an amended complaint. (Henshaw, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMMY DAVIS MORGAN, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 2:19-cv-1600 CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER SACRAMENTO CO. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a county prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 18 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff has 19 submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). ECF No. 2. 20 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 21 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 22 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 23 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 24 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 25 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments 26 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 27 These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 28 the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 1 1 2 § 1915(b)(2). Plaintiff has filed two copies of his complaint, the second of which was docketed as a first 3 amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 1, 6.) Because the complaints are identical, the Clerk of the 4 Court will be directed to strike the second copy of the complaint as duplicative. Plaintiff has also 5 filed a motion for supplemental pleading. (ECF No. 8.) In the motion, plaintiff requests that his 6 supplemental pleading be added onto his original complaint. (Id. at 1.) Review of the proposed 7 supplemental pleading reveals that it makes allegations against defendants generally or against a 8 defendant without specifying which defendant. The court is unable to determine whether plaintiff 9 has stated a claim against a defendant if it is unable to tell which defendant the claims are being 10 made against. Furthermore, the purpose of a supplemental pleading is to plead additional events 11 that occur after the pleading to be supplemented. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Plaintiff’s proposed 12 supplemental pleading does not appear to allege new incidents occurring after the complaint, but 13 instead appears to be an attempt to expand the original complaint to include claims under the 14 Americans with Disabilities Act. If plaintiff would like to add additional claims to his complaint, 15 he will need to file an amended complaint that includes all of the claims that he seeks to make, 16 and he will be given an opportunity to do so. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to strike the second copy of plaintiff’s complaint 19 (ECF No. 6) from the record. 20 2. Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the complaint (ECF No. 8) is denied. 21 3. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty days of the service of this order. 22 Failure to file an amended complaint will result in this action proceeding on the original 23 complaint. 24 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner complaint 25 form used in this district. 26 Dated: October 8, 2019 27 28 13:morg1600.supplement _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?