United States District Court, D. Arizona
S. Willett, United States Magistrate Judge
before the Court are a number of motions, which the Court has
reviewed and rules on as set forth below.
Plaintiff's “Motion to Supplement Second Amended
Complaint” (Doc. 174)
August 26, 2016, the Court deemed Plaintiff's “Rule
15(d) Motion for Leave to Supplement Original Pleading”
(Doc. 139) a motion to amend the Second Amended Complaint
(Doc. 15). (Doc. 168 at 2). The Court denied Plaintiff leave
to amend the Second Amended Complaint because Plaintiff's
Motion (Doc. 139) was untimely filed and Plaintiff failed to
show the good cause necessary for the Court to deviate from
its Rule 16 Scheduling Order. (Doc. 168 at 4). In addition,
Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 139) failed to comply with Local
Rule of Civil Procedure 15.1. (Id.). The Court
granted Plaintiff leave to file a motion to supplement the
Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 15) pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15(d). (Id.). On September 9,
2016, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Supplement Second
Amended Complaint” (Doc. 174) and “Supplemental
Pleading to Second Amended Complaint” (Doc.
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). “Rule 15(d) is intended to give
district courts broad discretion in allowing supplemental
pleadings” as it is “a tool of judicial economy
and convenience.” Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d
467, 473 (9th Cir. 1988). “While leave to permit
supplemental pleading is favored, it cannot be used to
introduce a separate, distinct and new cause of action”
that should have been the subject of a separate suit.
Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona v. Neely, 130
F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997).
is currently one claim at issue in this case-Plaintiff's
allegation that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to
Plaintiff's serious medical need to be in a smoke-free
environment. (Doc. 104 at 9-11, 13-14). Plaintiff's
“Supplemental Pleading” (Doc. 175) seeks to add
six new defendants and two new claims. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants were indifferent to his serious medical needs by
refusing to provide Plaintiff with a “low fat reduced
sodium medical diet.” (Doc. 175 at 2-7). Plaintiff also
alleges the loss of personal property and emotional and
physical injury arising from a prison riot that occurred in
July 2015. (Id. at 10-23). The Court finds that the
proposed new claims represent separate causes of action that
are distinct from the cause of action currently at issue. To
reiterate, the goal of Rule 15(d) is judicial efficiency.
Keith, 858 F.2d at 473. This case is over two years
old, discovery has closed, and briefing on Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment is nearly complete. (Docs. 166,
192-93). Judicial efficiency will not be served if Plaintiff
is permitted to add two new claims unrelated to
Plaintiff's existing cause of action against new
defendants. Plaintiff's “Motion to Supplement
Second Amended Complaint” (Doc. 174) will be denied.
Plaintiff's “Motion to Strike . . .” (Doc.
186) and Defendants' Request for Doubled Attorney Fees
Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-349(A) (Docs. 182,
has moved to strike Defendants' “Response in
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Second
Amended Complaint” (Doc. 182). (Doc. 186).
Defendants' Response (Doc. 182) is authorized by Local
Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(c). Plaintiff's Motion to
Strike (Doc. 186) will be denied.
their Response (Doc. 182 at 6), Defendants request that the
Court “order Plaintiff to pay Defendants' doubled
reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred as the result
of Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement in an amount not to
exceed five thousand dollars as set forth in A.R.S.
12-349.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-349(A) provides
Except as otherwise provided by and not inconsistent with
another statute, in any civil action commenced or appealed in
a court of record in this state, the court shall assess
reasonable attorney fees, expenses and, at the court's
discretion, double damages of not to exceed five thousand
dollars against an attorney or party, including this state
and political subdivisions of this state, if the attorney or
party does any of the following:
1. Brings or defends a claim without substantial
2. Brings or defends a claim solely or primarily for delay or