Victor v. Varano et al

Filing 103

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Accordingly, upon due consideration of Victors motion to file a supplemental complaint (Doc. 98 ), and for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the motion is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on June 21, 2012. (kjn )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM VICTOR,
Plaintiff
v.
DAVID VARANO, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 3:11-CV-891
(Judge Nealon)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
William Victor, an inmate in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of

Corrections, commenced the above-captioned action on May 11, 2011. (Doc. 1)
Victor amended the complaint on July 12, 2011. (Doc. 23) Subsequently, Victor
sought permission to submit a motion to file a second amended complaint by
February 13, 2012. The Court granted that request, but Victor never submitted the
motion he had asked permission to file.
Instead, two months later, on April 11, 2012, Victor returned to the Court to
request that he be provided with a copy of his previously filed amended complaint,
replacement copies of the written discovery documents the Defendants had produced,
and that he be given an additional 60 days to file a motion to amend the complaint.
(Doc. 95) Victor also requests that discovery be continued for 90 days, and that the

Court prevent Defendants from taking his deposition until after he has prepared and
filed his second amended complaint. (Id.)
Upon consideration, on April 12, 2012, we entered an order granting Victor’s
request in part without the Court unnecessarily delaying this action through further
briefing. (Doc. 97) In that order, we directed the Clerk of Court to furnish Victor
with a copy of his amended complaint, and we directed Defendants to provide Victor
with another copy of written discovery responses that were previously produced. We
also granted Victor’s request that his deposition in this case be scheduled after he has
submitted a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, together with a
copy of the proposed complaint.
However, because we concluded that Victor had by that time been given a
substantial opportunity to litigate this matter over the prior year, including multiple
extensions of deadlines, we found it inappropriate to grant an additional two months
for Victor to prepare a second amended complaint. Instead, we directed Victor to file
a motion for leave to submit a second amended complaint, together with a copy of the
proposed second amended complaint, by Friday, May 4, 2012. (Id.)
In our order we further included a detailed recitation of the halting procedural
history that had plagued this litigation, and we explicitly placed Victor on notice that

2

no further extensions of time, or additional delays, would be permitted absent a
compelling showing of good cause.
On April 24, 2012, Victor filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental
complaint pursuant to Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 98)
In the motion, Victor sought leave “to add defendants in this matter as well as new
claims that occurred after the amended complaint was filed . . . .” (Id.) The motion
represented that Victor had submitted a legal brief that would provide support for the
motion. (Id.) That brief, a spare, two-page document, suggested that Victor was
claiming civil rights violations “that occurred after he filed the amended complaint
involving some of these same and different defendants,” and provided in material part
only as follows:
Plaintiff does not wish to delay this matter any more than
necessary and yet argues it would be prudent to supplement
and establish a connection and more than inadvertant [sic]
motive for continued retaliation and abuse that occurred at
SCI-Coal and a subsequent facility (Mahanoy) on or about
Oct. 14, 2011 and Nov. 9, 2011 and respectfully ask this
court to grant this motion after review of copy attached and
any such further relief necessary.
(Doc. 99)
Defendants filed a timely brief opposing the motion, arguing that Victor’s
request lacked any detail regarding the purported supplemental allegations, or about

3

any connection between the new, vague allegations and the averments in the amended
complaint. (Doc. 100) In addition, Defendants argue that if Victor is permitted to
supplement his complaint in this fashion, at this stage of the litigation, it would result
in unnecessary delay. (Id.) Defendants observe that Victor has provided no
justification for seeking to supplement his amended complaint in this manner, and
they suggest that Victor be required to initiate a new civil action he believes he has
a valid claim of retaliation against new individuals. (Id.)
Upon consideration, we conclude that Victor has provided insufficient
explanation regarding his proposed supplemental allegations, or the substantial delay
in bringing these allegations. Victor’s overly general description of additional
instances of alleged retaliation are simply insufficient to permit the Court or
Defendants to evaluate whether they are properly the subject of a supplemental
complaint. We have twice previously endeavored to provide Victor with some
guidance in response to his request to supplement or further amend his complaint in
this action, (Docs. 65, 97), but our efforts have failed to yield a motion justifying such
relief. Although we are mindful of the liberal standards applicable to motions for
leave to amend or supplement pleadings under Rules 15(a) and 15(d) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, we are constrained to find that Victor’s request for leave

4

fails to meet or surpass even these modest thresholds. Accordingly, the motion will
be denied.
II.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Ths is a civil rights action brought by William Victor, a state prisoner who is

proceeding pro se. Victor, an inmate previously incarcerated at the State Correctional
Institution at Coal Township (“SCI-Coal Township”), and who is now held in the
Special Management Unit at SCI-Camp Hill, commenced this action by filing a
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 11, 2011, which initially named more
than 20 corrections officials at SCI-Coal Township as Defendants. (Doc. 1) On June
27, 2011, Victor was granted leave to file an amended complaint on or before July 15,
2011. (Doc. 17) Victor filed an amended complaint on July 12, 2011, (Doc.
23),which also named twenty Defendants and contained an array of claims, including
allegations of medical neglect, use of excessive force, retaliatory discipline, and
destruction of personal property. (Id.) The Defendants have filed an answer to this
complaint (Doc. 26), and the parties are currently litigating the matters relating to
Victor’s claims in this amended complaint.
On December 15, 2011, Victor moved to enlarge the discovery and dispositive
motions deadlines by 90 days. (Docs. 61) In addition, Victor requested that his

5

deposition in this action be delayed until he has filed a supplemental amended
complaint, which he proposed to file by January 12, 2012. (Id.)
Defendants promptly responded to Plaintiff’s motion, representing that
although they did not oppose an enlargement of the discovery and dispositive motions
deadlines, and although they were agreeable to postponing Victor’s deposition, they
asserted that Victor should be required to move for leave to file a second amended
complaint, or to move to supplement his complaint, and to describe for the Court and
Defendants the parties, facts, and claims he intends to add to the new or supplemental
pleading. (Doc. 63)
On December 19, 2011, the Court issued an order granting Victor’s motion, in
part. In our order, we directed Victor to file a motion seeking leave to amend or
supplement his complaint by January 12, 2012, and we enlarged discovery and other
case-management deadlines. (Doc. 65)
On January 12, 2012, the day he was to have filed his motion seeking leave to
amend or supplement his complaint, Victor instead filed a motion seeking an
additional 30 days to file his motion and proposed amended complaint. (Doc. 67)
The Court immediately entered an order granting the requested extension, directed
Plaintiff to file a motion for leave to file an amended or supplemental complaint, with

6

a supporting brief, on or before Thursday, February 13, 2012, and adjusted other casemanagement deadlines. (Doc. 69)
Victor failed to submit a motion for leave to file a supplemental or second
amended complaint by February 13, 2012, though around this time he did write
several letters to the Court, and also litigated a motion seeking a temporary
restraining order on grounds that corrections officers at SCI-Camp Hill had
unlawfully removed or destroyed his legal property, and were otherwise subjecting
him to retaliation. (Docs. 70, 71, 72, 73, 74)
Due in part to Victor’s wide-ranging and very serious allegations in these
letters and motion papers, the Court compelled counsel for Defendants in this action
to inquire into, and respond to, Victor’s claims that prison officials at SCI-Camp Hill
were interfering with Victor’s ability to review his legal materials; communicate with
the Court about his pending cases; obtain copies of legal documents; and otherwise
participate meaningfully in both of his then-pending civil actions.1 Defendants’
counsel complied with this order, and filed a timely response on February 22, 2012,
In addition to the instant action, Victor was also the Plaintiff in a case that
was recently tried a jury verdict in Victor v. Lawler, et al., No.3:08-CV-1374,
which resulted in a judgment being entered in favor of the Defendants on May 29,
2012. Victor has also filed another action, which arises out of alleged misconduct
and disciplinary proceedings at SCI-Camp Hill, and which formed the basis for his
requested preliminary injunctive relief in this case. See Victor v. Huber, et al.,
No.3:12-CV-282.
1

7

representing that corrections officials had informed her that no one is tampering with
Victor’s legal materials, depriving him of legal documents and materials necessary
to litigate pending matters, destroying legal documents, intimidating the Plaintiff, or
interfering with his ability to communicate with the Court about his pending matters.
(Doc. 79)
For his part, Victor responded by dismissing counsel’s response as “a complete
lie” and urging the Court to become embroiled in the dispute by convening
evidentiary hearings. (Doc. 80) In addition, on February 29, 2012, Victor proceeded
to file a second motion seeking emergency injunctive relief concerning entirely new
allegations of alleged retaliation and harassment on the part of SCI-Camp Hill
corrections staff. (Docs. 81, 82) Victor also proceeded to submit multiple letters to
the Court in which he made further allegations against the Defendants and requested
that the Court take assorted action in this case, as well as in other litigation and
habeas proceedings that Victor is litigating. (Docs. 84, 85, 86, 87)
On April 3, 2012, the District Court entered an order denying Victor’s motions
for injunctive relief, and remanded this case to the undersigned for further
proceedings. (Doc. 89)
On April 5, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for leave to take Victor’s
deposition, observing that they had been instructed to withhold from such deposition
8

until after Victor filed leave to submit a second amended complaint on February 13,
2012, and noting that Victor had failed to comply with this deadline. (Doc. 90) The
Court granted this motion, and directed Defendants to take Plaintiff’s deposition
within 30 days. (Doc. 93) Also on April 5, 2012, Defendants moved for an extension
of time to file dispositive motions until July 1, 2012. (Doc. 92) The Court entered
an order granting this motion on the same day. (Doc. 94)
On April 11, 2012, Victor filed a motion requesting that he be provided with
additional copies of his amended complaint and the written discovery that the
Defendants previously produced to him, that he be given 60 additional days to
prepare a second amended complaint, and that Defendants be prevented from
deposing him until after his files his proposed second amended complaint. (Doc. 95)
We ruled on this motion the following day, April 12, 2012, by: (1) adjusting
the case management deadlines in the case; (2) directing Defendants to furnish Victor
with another set of written discovery responses that they previously produced; and
(3) ordering Victor to file a motion for leave to file an amended or supplemental
complaint by May 4, 2012, “along with a supporting brief and a copy of the proposed
second amended or supplemental complaint.” (Doc. 97, at 10-11)
On April 24, 2012, Victor filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental
complaint, together with a two-paragraph brief in support of the motion. (Docs. 98,
9

99) Despite our clear instruction in the April 12, 2012, order, Victor failed to provide
a copy of the proposed supplemental complaint. Indeed, Victor provided no
meaningful description of the proposed supplemental claims themselves, other than
to indicate that they involve some of the already named Defendants, together with
some new unnamed Defendants, concerning unspecified incidents alleged to have
occurred on or about October 14, 2011, and November 9, 2011. Defendants filed a
brief in opposition to the motion on April 25, 2012, (Doc. 100), and Victor declined
to file a reply brief in further support of the motion.
III.

DISCUSSION
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs amendments and

supplementation of pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Rule 15(a) authorizes a party to
amend his pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it, or if the
pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of
the responsive pleading, or 21 days after service of a dispositive motion under Rule
12, whichever is earlier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A) and (B). “In all other cases, a
party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent, or the
court’s leave,” which courts are to freely give “when justice so requires.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

10

The Third Circuit has embraced a liberal approach to granting leave to amend
pleadings under Rule 15(a)(2) in order to ensure that “a particular claim will be
decided on the merits rather than on technicalities.” Dole v. Arco Chem. Co., 921
F.2d 484, 486-87 (3d Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). Consistent with this policy,
leave to amend should ordinarily be granted absent a showing of “undue delay, bad
faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of
the allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis, 371
U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Oran v. Stafford, 226 F.3d 275, 291 (3d Cir. 2000).
Rule 15(d), in turn, governs the submission of supplemental pleadings. That
rule provides that upon the motion of a party, “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.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(d). A supplemental complaint thus “refers to events that occurred after the
original pleading was filed” whereas an amendment to a complaint “covers matters
that occurred before the filing of the original pleading but were overlooked at the
time.” Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Lake Shore Land Co., 610 F.2d 1185, 1188-89 (3d Cir.
1979); see also Moore’s Federal Practice 3d § 15.30 (“Rule 15(d) applies only to
events that have occurred since the date of the filing of the pleading.”). Thus, the
11

purpose of the rule “is to promote as complete an adjudication of the dispute between
the parties as possible by allowing the addition of claims which arise after the initial
pleadings are filed.” Carl Zeiss Meditec v. Xoft, Inc., C.A. No. 10-308-LPS/MPT,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36785, * 4 (D. Del. April 5, 2011) (citation omitted).
“The standard under Rule 15(d) is ‘essentially the same’ as that under Rule
15(a), and leave to supplement should be granted unless it causes undue delay or
undue prejudice.” Micron Tech. v. Rambus, Inc., 409 F. Supp. 2d 552, 558 (D. Del.
2006) (citing Medeva Pharma Ltd. v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 201 F.R.D. 103, 104
n.3 (D. Del. 2001)). Application of Rule 15(d) in a given case is committed to the
Court’s broad discretion. Intel Corp. v. Amberwave Sys. Corp., 233 F.R.D. 416, 418
(D. Del. 2005).
In our April 12, 2012, order, we provided Victor the opportunity to seek leave
to file either a second amended complaint or a supplemental complaint, and we took
care to explain for his benefit that a “supplemental” complaint under Rule 15(d) is a
document that does not replace an extant pleading, but instead supplements that
pleading to include “any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date
of the pleading to be supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) (emphasis added). In our
order we explained the purpose of the rule, and we provided the following explicit
instruction:
12

On or before Friday, May 4, 2012, Plaintiff shall file a
motion for leave to file an amended or supplemental
complaint, along with a supporting brief and a copy of the
proposed second amended or supplemental complaint.
There will be no further extensions to seek permission
to file another amended complaint in this action absent
a showing of good cause.
(Doc. 97, p. 11 ¶ 3)
Despite having twice provided Victor with opportunities to seek leave to
amend or supplement his complaint pursuant to his request – in a case that has already
seen one amended complaint – Victor has failed to comply with the Court’s
instructions regarding the submission of a motion to file a supplemental complaint,
in particular by failing to submit a copy of the proposed supplemental complaint. The
absence of a supplemental complaint makes it impossible for the Court to evaluate
meaningfully whether the proposed supplemental allegations are appropriately
brought as part of this lawsuit, or whether they concern separate matters that should
properly be brought in a standalone action. The generic allegation that “some of the[]
same and different defendants” were involved in unspecified incidents that took place
“on or about Oct. 14, 2011 and Nov. 9, 2011" is simply inadequate to persuade us that
the Defendants should be required to answer to a new, supplemental complaint in this
action.

13

IV.

ORDER
Accordingly, upon due consideration of Victor’s motion to file a supplemental

complaint (Doc. 98), and for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
THAT the motion is DENIED.
/s/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
Untied States Magistrate Judge

14