DEEN-MITCHELL v. LAPPIN et al

Filing 86

ORDER (1) plaintiffs motions to amend and/or supplement his complaint, (Doc. No. 76) & (Doc. No. 81), are GRANTED, and plaintiff shall file one final all-inclusive amended complaint by February 15, 2012 in accordance with the directions provided abov e;(2)plaintiffs motion to have supplement to complaint held in abeyance, (Doc. No. 82), is DENIED as moot;(3)plaintiffs motions for the defendants to return his legal materials, (Doc. No. 71), (Doc. No. 73), (Doc. No. 83) & (Doc. No. 85), areDENIED; (4)plaintiffs motion for a court order regarding the preservation of evidence, (Doc. No. 78), is DENIED; and(5)plaintiffs supplemental complaint, (Doc. No. 77), is stricken from the record.Signed by Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion on 1/10/12 (Attachments: # 1 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 2 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 3 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 4 Unpublished Opinion(s)) (bs, )

Page 1

WILLIAM SEYMOUR/JONES v. ALAN J. LEFEBVRE, et al.
Civil Action No. 90-2267
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11886

August 22, 1991, Decided
August 22, 1991, Filed

COUNSEL: [*1] William
Graterford, Pennsylvania.

Jones/Seymour,

P.P.,

BILL BALDINI & W.C.A.U. (CBS INC.) BY: Ronald P.
Schiller, esquire, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, ALAN J.
LeFEBVRE, BY: Denise A. Kuhn, esquire, OFFICE OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
CBS INC. AND BILL BALDINI, BY: Madeleine
Schachter, esquire, New York, New York, for Defendant.
JUDGES: Donald W. VanArtsdalen, Senior United
States District Judge.
OPINION BY: VanARTSDALEN
OPINION

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, William Seymour/Jones (Jones), has filed a
motion seeking reconsideration of the Order of August
12, 1991, denying his motion to file a supplemental
complaint in this action. For the reasons discussed herein,
I will deny the motion.
This action arose out of a news segment taped and
broadcast on March 28, 1990 on WCAU-TV, concerning
overcrowding at Graterford Prison. Jones, an inmate at

the prison, alleges that he was improperly photographed
in connection with the news segment. Jones' proposed
supplemental complaint concerned alleged improper
conduct on the part of defendant Alan J. LeFebvre and
other prison officials in denying Jones outside work
clearance and pre-release home furlough status. Although
these allegations [*2] might properly be the subject of a
separate action, they are wholly unrelated to the facts
underlying this action, and I therefore denied Jones'
request to amend the complaint to include such
allegations.
Jones now argues that in denying him leave to file an
amended or supplemental complaint, I disregarded the
provisions of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Specifically, Jones points to subsections (a),
(c) and (d) of that Rule. Under Rule 15(a), once a
responsive pleading has been served, a party may amend
its pleading only by leave of court. Although leave is to
"be freely given when justice so requires," Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a), it may be denied when the amendment would
involve prejudice to the opposing party. Howze v. Jones
& Laughlin Steel Corp., 750 F.2d 1208, 1212 (3d Cir.
1984). In this case, the proposed amendments involve
more than additional related claims or legal theories, they
concern only one of the three defendants, and are entirely
new and separate claims based on unrelated facts and
events. Moreover, they would involve additional
discovery at a point when the discovery period has almost
expired. 1 Allowing the proposed amendments [*3]

Page 2
1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11886, *3

would thus involve significant prejudice to the opposing
parties, Jones's motion will therefore be denied.
1 All discovery in this matter is to be completed
by September 13, 1991.
Jones' reliance on subsections (c) and (d) of Rule 15
is also misplaced. Rule 15(c) involves relation back of a
claim or defense asserted in an amended pleading that
arose out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence
set forth in the original pleading. The claims contained in
the proposed amendments do not arise out of the same
conduct as those in the original complaint and Rule 15(c)
is therefore inapplicable. Similarly, a motion seeking

leave to file a supplemental pleading under Rule 15(d) is
properly denied where the claim asserted in the
supplemental pleading is unrelated to the original
pleading. 6a C. Wright and A. Miller, Federal Practice
and Procedure, § 1510 at 208.
An order follows.
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the foregoing memorandum,
it is ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration
is DENIED.