Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reed v. Barcklay

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

December 11, 2013

Kenneth W. Reed, Plaintiff,
v.
Karen Barcklay, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge.

After the Court resolved the summary judgment motion in this case, and after the close of discovery, Plaintiff moved to supplement his complaint to add two new causes of action, and to add more facts to support Count I of the current controlling complaint.

I. Request to Add Two New Counts

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) provides the mechanism for supplemental pleadings.[6] "Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d), the court may permit a party to supplement his complaint in order to set out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.' " Burnett v. Dugan, 2011 WL 1002145, at *2 (S.D.Cal. March 21, 2011) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d)) (emphasis in original). "Rule 15(d) permits the filing of a supplemental pleading which introduces a cause of action not alleged in the original complaint and not in existence when the original complaint was filed." Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 382 (9th Cir.1998) (citation omitted). In other words, Rule 15(d) provides a mechanism for parties to file additional causes of action based on facts that did not exist when the original complaint was initially filed. Eid v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 621 F.3d 858, 874 (9th Cir.2010) (denying claims which arose from conduct which happened nearly a year before plaintiffs filed their first complaint). "The purpose of Rule 15(d) 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." William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc., 668 F.2d 1014, 1057 (9th Cir.1981); see also Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473 (9th Cir.1988) ("[A] supplemental pleading is one designed to bring earlier pleadings up to date.") (citation omitted). The rule "permits the bringing of new claims in a supplemental complaint to promote the economical and speedy disposition of the controversy." Keith , 858 F.2d at 473; see also San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 236 F.R.D. 491, 499 (E.D.Cal. 2006) ("The district court has developed extensive knowledge of the relevant law, background, and scientific considerations... Retaining the new claims as part of the existing case serves the interests of judicial economy.").

Womack v. GEO Group, Inc, 2013 WL 491979, *4 (D. Ariz. 2013) (footnote in original).

Here, the facts that underlie Plaintiff's request to supplement to add two new counts occurred before he filed his complaint. As the above discussion indicates, because the facts occurred before the complaint was filed, Plaintiff cannot supplement to add these facts.

Plaintiff argues that he should be excused from this general rule because his original complaint contained these causes of action, but they were dismissed, without prejudice, because he had not yet exhausted his administrative remedies. Plaintiff further alleges that he has now exhausted those remedies; thus, he should be able to supplement his complaint to add them.

The Court disagrees. These facts existed at the time Plaintiff filed his original complaint. Plaintiff could have chosen to exhaust his remedies prior to filing so that those claims could also have been timely included in the original complaint. Accordingly, the Court will not permit Plaintiff to amend to add two new causes of action based on facts that occurred prior to the filing of the original complaint. See cf. Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that a prisoner could supplement a complaint with claims based on facts that occurred after the original complaint was filed).

II. Request to Add Additional Facts to Count I

[I]t is not necessarily appropriate for the Court to consider allegations of violations that have occurred subsequent to the filing of the [original pleading]. If the plaintiff wishes to present such allegations and/or wishes to rely upon them as additional support for a preliminary or permanent injunction, the plaintiff should file a supplemental complaint pursuant to Rule 15(d), Fed. R. Civ. Proc.

Canez v. Laborers' Inter., 1993 WL 814098, *11 (D. Ariz. 1993) (quoting Selelyo v. Drury, 508 F.Supp. 122, 128 (S.D. Ohio 1980)).

In this case, this Court has previously stated

B. Consideration of Facts Arising After Filing of First Amended Complaint

Defendant argues that Plaintiff presents no basis for the Court to consider any post-Complaint facts he included in his Statement of Facts and that it is not up to her to respond to allegations not included in Plaintiff's Complaint, which was filed on May 23, 2011 (Doc. 278 at 6). Defendant notes that the delivery of inmate healthcare to ADC inmates is now provided by an independent contractor; thus, allowing Plaintiff to expand this case with post-Complaint allegations will significantly slow down resolution because the independent healthcare provider will need to be notified and served ( id. ). Defendant further argues that post-Complaint facts ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.