Downer v. Bolton et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION & ORDER by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 1/22/2018; for the reasons stated forth in this opinion; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motions to supplement his complaint and amended complaint (DNs 17 & 18) are DENIED.cc:Pro-Se Pla. (ARM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
FREDDIE LEE DOWNER, JR.
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-P341-CRS

MARK BOLTON et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon two letters filed by pro se Plaintiff Freddie Lee
Downer, Jr., which this Court construes as motions to supplement the complaint and amended
complaint (DNs 17 & 18). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motions will be denied.
Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee who brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. In the Court’s review of Plaintiff’s complaint and amended complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court allowed Plaintiff’s claims for deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs to proceed against two officials at the Louisville Metro Department of
Corrections, where Plaintiff is incarcerated.
In his motions to supplement the complaint, Plaintiff seeks to add a columnist from the
Louisville Courier Journal as a defendant in this action. Plaintiff alleges that the columnist “has
put my name and criminal history all in the newspaper and on the initialnet. Now it will be hard
for me to have a fair tail here in Kentucky . . . . This man has put my history in the public eye
and that is not good for me or my family.” Plaintiff also indicates that he has been assaulted in
jail because of what the columnist has written. Plaintiff attaches to his motions the article
written by the columnist about Plaintiff.

Supplementation of a complaint is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, which states in part:
On motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to
serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event
that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented. The court may
permit supplementation even though the original pleading is defective in stating a
claim or defense.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Whether to grant or deny a request to supplement a pleading is left to the
sound discretion of the trial court. Burse v. Robinson, No. 2:14-cv-403, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
62739 (S.D. Ohio May 13, 2015). In exercising its discretion under Rule 15(d), the Court
considers “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to
cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by
virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of the amendment.” Id. (citing Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Spies v. Voinovich, 48 F. App’x 520, 527 (6th Cir. 2002)
(holding same standard of review and rationale apply to motions filed under Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a) and 15(d)). A proposed amendment is futile if it could not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss. Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir. 2000).
Proposed amendments and supplements to a prisoner’s complaint must be reviewed sua
sponte under 28 U.S.C. §1915A. Courts have generally held that “[u]nrelated claims against
different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple
claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required
filing fees - - for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or
appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees.” George v. Smith,
507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). See also Hetep v. Warren, 27 F.
App’x 308, 309 (6th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted) (holding proposed amendment adding new
unrelated claims against new defendants not allowed); Alford v. Mohr, No. 1:15-cv-645, 2018

2

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2395 (S.D. Ohio, Jan 3, 2018) (same).
In his motions, Plaintiff seeks to add a new claim against a new defendant arising out of
an incident wholly unrelated to the claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs that
the Court has allowed to proceed in this action. Thus, Plaintiff’s claim against the columnist is
properly addressed in a new civil action.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions to supplement his
complaint and amended complaint (DNs 17 & 18) are DENIED.
Date:

January 22, 2018

C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
e
I
r
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
e
s tc
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4411.011

3