Johnson v. Cox et al

Filing 54

ORDER that 44 Motion to File a Supplemental Complaint is DENIED without prejudice and the Court VACATES the hearing previously set for March 7, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/24/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
RANDY JOHNSON,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
JAMES COX, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-01326-JCM-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 44)

16

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental complaint. Docket

17

No. 44. Defendants filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 47. No reply was filed. The Court finds

18

the motion properly decided without oral argument, see Local Rule 78-2, and therefore VACATES the

19

hearing previously set for March 7, 2016.

20

Plaintiff’s motion is defective in numerous respects. First, the deadline to amend the pleadings

21

expired July 2, 2015 and discovery has been closed since August 3, 2015. Docket No. 16 at 2.

22

Sufficient explanation for not complying with the scheduling order has not been provided. Second,

23

Plaintiff seeks that the new allegations be added to the operative pleading in this case, see Docket No.

24

44 at 2-4 (purporting to add “additional facts of the case”), which is improper. See, e.g., Strong v.

25

Woodford, 428 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1087 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (an amended pleading must be “complete in

26

itself without reference”); Docket No. 30 at 1 (“The second amended complaint must also be complete

1

in itself, and should not refer back to any previous complaints or otherwise fail to properly plead each

2

claim that is before the Court”). Third, it appears that the allegations presented relate to new instances

3

of alleged retaliation since the filing of this case, see, e.g., Docket No. 44 at 2 (alleging misconduct

4

“[s]ince Plaintiff’s . . . initial 1983 complaints”), but Plaintiff fails to explain why such allegations are

5

properly added to this case rather than being litigated through the initiation of a new case with a separate

6

complaint.

7
8
9
10

For each of these reasons, the pending motion to file a supplemental complaint is DENIED
without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 24, 2016

11
12

NANCY J. KOPPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2