Montalban v. Powell et al
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry). Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 7/13/17. (rw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MR. POWELL, et al.,
CIVIL NO. 1:CV-17-0212
The pro se plaintiff, José Montalban, filed this civil rights action in February
2017 concerning events that transpired while he was housed at USP Canaan. Montalban
then filed an Amended Complaint. On May 23, 2017, we directed service of the Amended
Complaint on the named Defendants. (ECF No. 22). Presently before the court are
Montalban’s two motions to supplement the Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 27 and 28)
and a request for service forms.
(ECF No. 29). For the reasons that follow the motions to
supplement will be granted in part and denied in part. The motion for service forms will be
deemed moot as the court will direct service of the Amended Complaint on the recently
identified John Doe Defendants from USP Canaan.
Standard of Review
The filing of an Amended Complaint is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a):
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its
pleading once as a matter of course within:
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is
required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days
after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is
(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its
pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the
court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
Montalban’s first motion (ECF No. 27) to supplement the Amended Complaint
will be denied. As Montalban has already amended his pleading once as a matter of right,
further amendment is only permitted with the consent of the defendants or leave of court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires,” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2), but we decline to do so here. Upon reviewing the documents submitted in
connection with Montalban’s first motion to supplement, we note that they range from
documentary evidence of events that post-date the filing of his Amended Complaint (more
suitable for submission at the summary judgment stage in this matter) to pages of more
detailed allegations concerning the alleged assault of Montalban by previously identified
Defendants. Thus, simply adding the submitted documents would chaotically alter the
existing allegations of the Amended Complaint. While we will deny this motion to
supplement, we do so without prejudice to Montalban’s submitting these documents at
The second motion (ECF No. 28) to supplement identifies the John Doe
Defendants listed in his Amended Complaint as well as provides documentary evidence in
support of his injuries and treatment. As noted above, the documentary evidence
submitted is more appropriately submitted during summary judgment in support of his
claims and adds little to the Amended Complaint. Thus, he will not be permitted to
supplement his Amended Complaint with this material.
We note that Montalban’s second motion identifies “Guillard, FNU” and
“Snee, FNU” as USP Canaan Corrections Officers who assaulted him in the infirmary. He
also identifies “Schultz, FNU” as the Lieutenant in the “R.D.” in July 2014 who allegedly
confiscated or lost his legal materials following his July 2014 criminal trial. Accordingly,
these individuals will be added as Defendants and served with the Amended Complaint.
Based on this decision, Montalban’s motion (ECF No. 29) for service forms will be deemed
We will issue an appropriate order.
/s/ William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge
Date: July 13, 2017
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?