Morton v. Johanson et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting 9 Motion to file a supplemental complaint. The Clerk is directed to file the proposed supplemental complaint on the docket as the Plaintiff's Supplemental Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.**3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Cecil Morton, Prisoner ID: 725136)(CMG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 6 7 8 CECIL MORTON, Plaintiff, 9 10 v. CASE NO. 3:16-cv-05728-RJB-KLS ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENT TO COMPLAINT 11 VENESSA JOHANSON, et al, 12 Defendants. 13 Plaintiff Cecil Morton requests leave to file a supplemental complaint. Dkt. 9. 14 Defendants do not oppose plaintiff’s motion to the extent that he is requesting leave to amend his 15 complaint in its entirety. Dkt. 12. Plaintiff argues that he should be allowed to file a supplement 16 to his complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) because the proposed supplement includes 17 matters that occurred after the filing of his original complaint. Dkt. 16. 18 DISCUSSION 19 Plaintiff’s original complaint was filed in August 2016. Dkt. 1. In his proposed 20 supplement, plaintiff seeks to add a claim of retaliation against a new party, Ronnie L. Rucker, 21 for conduct relating to plaintiff’s extended family visitation (EFV) application that occurred 22 between May and September of 2016. It appears that some of the conduct, including Plaintiff’s 23 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENT TO COMPLAINT - 1 1 unsuccessful appeal of the denial of his EFV application occurred in September 2016, after the 2 filing of his original complaint. Dkt. 9-2. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Rucker wrongfully used the 3 infraction, which forms the basis of the allegations in his original complaint, as a basis to deny 4 his EFV application. 5 Rule 15(d) allows the court to grant a plaintiffs' motion to serve a supplemental 6 complaint, “setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the 7 pleading to be supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). The rule allows district courts broad 8 discretion to permit supplemental pleadings. Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473 (9th Cir.1988). 9 Rule 15(d) is meant to avoid the costs, delays, and wastes associated with separate actions. Id. 10 In addition, the Supreme Court has expressly approved the addition of new parties under the 11 Rule: “[Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d)] plainly permits supplemental amendments to cover events 12 happening after suit, and it follows, of course, that persons participating in these new events may 13 be added if necessary.” Griffin v. County School Board, 377 U.S. 218, 227 (1964). 14 The allegations in the original and supplemental complaint are clearly stated and should 15 not cause confusion for the defendants. There is also a relationship between the claim in the 16 supplemental complaint and the claims in the original complaint. A supplemental complaint 17 under the circumstances of this case will assist in the "efficient administration of justice" and a 18 supplement "ought to be allowed as of course, unless some particular reason for disallowing 19 them appears." Keith, 858 F2d at 473. Defendants have not presented a sufficient reason to not 20 allow acceptance of the supplemental complaint. Under separate order, the Court will direct 21 service of the supplemental complaint on Mr. Rucker. 22 It is, therefore, ORDERED: 23 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENT TO COMPLAINT - 2 1 (1) Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental complaint (Dkt. 9) is GRANTED. The 2 Clerk is directed to file the proposed supplemental complaint (Dkt. 9-2) on the docket as the 3 Plaintiff’s Supplemental Complaint. 4 (2) 5 Dated this 2nd day of December, 2016. The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to plaintiff and counsel for defendants. 6 A 7 Karen L. Strombom United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENT TO COMPLAINT - 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?