Slaughter v. Glebe et al

Filing 221

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura Denying 215 Motion to Supplement; and Denying 217 Motion to Compel. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Ossie Slaughter, Prisoner ID: 827869)(GMR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 OSSIE LEE SLAUGHTER, 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 PATRICK R. GLEBE, et al., CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05484-BHS-JRC ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT AND MOTION TO COMPEL 12 Defendants. 13 14 This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge J. Richard 15 Creatura pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636 (b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Magistrate Judge Rules MJR 16 1, MJR 3, and MJR 4. 17 Plaintiff Ossie Lee Slaughter has filed two motions, one requesting to supplement the 18 record, and one requesting the Court order defendants to respond to plaintiff’s admissions and 19 interrogatories. 1 However, he has not properly included claims as required by Rule 15 in his 20 supplement, and has not properly met and conferred with defendants as required to compel 21 discovery. Therefore, the Court denies both motions. 22 23 1 24 The Court notes defendants have also filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 185. The Court will analyze this motion in a separate report and recommendation. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT AND MOTION TO COMPEL - 1 1 2 DISCUSSION I. Motion to Supplement 3 Plaintiff first asks the court to “allow him to supplement the record, pursuant to, Fed. R. 4 Civ. P. 15; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26; Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6).” Dkt. 215 at 1-2. The 5 Court agrees with defendants: the support for this motion under Rules 8, 26, or 30 is unclear. 6 Therefore, the Court interprets this as a motion to supplement or file an amended complaint 7 under Rule 15. 8 9 Rule 15(d) allows 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. 10 Civ. P. 15(d). “The rule is a tool of judicial economy and convenience. Its use is therefore 11 favored.” Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473 (9th Cir. 1988). However, it cannot be used to 12 introduce separate, new causes of action. Planned Parenthood v. Southern Arizona v. Neely, 130 13 F.3d 400, 402 (1997). In addition, leave to supplement should only be given “‘[i]n the absence of 14 any apparent or declared reason – such as undue delay, . . . repeated failure to cure deficiencies 15 by amendments previously allowed, . . . et cetera.’” San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. V. 16 U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 236 F.R.D. 491, 497 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 17 178, 182 (1962)). 18 Here, plaintiff has not shown that a supplement is appropriate. Though plaintiff moves to 19 supplement, he does not indicate what information he requests to be included, nor how it relates 20 to his original claims and how it has transpired since the filing of his original complaint. He 21 argues that defendants have failed to provide him with discovery (Dkt. 215 at 2-4), complains 22 that defendants and their attorney perjured themselves (Id. at 5-6), and concludes by asking that 23 the record be supplemented with admissions and interrogatories within ten days (Id. at 6). None 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT AND MOTION TO COMPEL - 2 1 of these are proper arguments for a motion to supplement under Rule 15, and the Court therefore 2 denies his motion. 3 4 II. Motion for Defendants’ Response to Admissions and Interrogatories Plaintiff has also filed a motion to compel defendants to respond to two sets of 5 interrogatories and admissions sent to defendants. Dkt. 217. Though a party may properly 6 request that the court compel discovery from a party, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and 7 Local Rule 37(a)(1) require the movant to first meet and confer with the party allegedly failing to 8 make disclosure or discovery. In addition, the movant must include a certification that they did, 9 in fact, meet and confer. LCR 37(a)(1). Failure to include a certification allows the Court to 10 11 “deny the motion without addressing the merits of the dispute.” Id. Here, plaintiff has not included a certification explaining his attempts to meet and confer 12 with defendants, nor explaining the outcome of those attempts. Therefore, the Court denies it 13 without addressing the merits. However, the Court does note that plaintiff’s requests were mailed 14 to defendants in January of 2018, well after the discovery deadline closed on November 27, 15 2017. See Dkts. 148, 164. Thus, plaintiff’s requests were sent to defendants in an untimely 16 manner and the Court would not compel defendants to respond to them. 17 18 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s motion to supplement (Dkt. 215) and motion for 19 defendants’ response (Dkt. 217) are denied. 20 Dated this 15th day of March, 2018. A 21 22 J. Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT AND MOTION TO COMPEL - 3

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?