Jones v. Hashagen et al

Filing 111

ORDER DENYING pltf's motion to supplement his complaint 107 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 03/20/12. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHRISTOPHER JONES,
Plaintiff
v.
CO LINDLER & DR. DEMPSEY
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4-09-CV-0887

(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 20th day of March, 2012, upon consideration of plaintiff
Jones’ motion to supplement his complaint (Doc. 107), wherein he seeks leave to
serve a supplemental complaint alleging retaliation upon officials of State
Correctional Instutite (SCI)-Mahanoy, where Jones is current incarcerated, for
opening his legal mail outside of his presence during the pendency of this action;
and upon equal consideration of defendant Lindler’s brief in opposition (Doc. 109),
wherein Lindler saliently observes that the claim that Jones seeks to supplement is
entirely unrelated to the original subject matter of the complaint—defendants’
alleged failure to protect him from assault by another inmate—and that, moreover,
dispositive motions on the remaining claims in Jones’ complaint have already been
filed (Docs. 78, 95); and, cognizant of a district court’s broad discretion over whether

to permit supplemental complaints,1 coupled with the recognition that allowing a
supplement of the sort that Jones seeks would neither promote justiciability of the
current claims (rather, it would surely delay a justiciable outcome) nor prejudice
Jones’ ability to set forth his retaliation claim in another forum if he so chooses,2 it
is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to supplement his complaint (Doc. 107)
is DENIED.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge

1

A motion seeking leave to serve supplemental pleadings is substantively
distinct from a motion seeking leave to amend a complaint. Compare FED . R. CIV . P.
15(a)–(c) (governing amendments to pleadings) with FED . R. CIV . P. 15(d) (governing
supplemental pleadings). Unlike motions to amend complaints, which a court must
“freely give leave” to do “when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), a court
“may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading,” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(d). Supplemental pleadings concern events that occurred after the original
pleading was filed and are frequently unrelated to the subject matter of the original
complaint. Id.; Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Lake Shore Land Co., Inc., 610 F.3d 1185,
1188–89 (3d Cir. 1979). Trial courts have considerable discretion in determining
whether a supplemental pleading is “advisable.” Owen-Illinois, Inc., 610 F.3d at
1189. See also Nottingham v. Peoria, 709 F. Supp. 542, 544 (M.D. Pa. 1988) (citing
Bates v. W. Elec., 420 F. Supp. 521, 525 (E.D. Pa. 1976)) (“An application for leave to
file a supplemental pleading . . . is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
court.”).
2

Denying the motion on these bases is consistent with the factors that a
court must consider when presented with such a motion. Under Nottingham, a
court should consider “the promotion of a justiciable disposition of the case, the
delay or inconvenience [that allowing] such a pleading [would] cause, and the
prejudice to the rights of the parties to the action.” Nottingham, 709 F. Supp. at 544
(citing Bates, 420 F. Supp. at 525; WRIGHT & MILLER , FEDERAL PRACTICE &
PROCEDURE § 1509.)