The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
Case No.: 19CV2406-DMS (BLM)
11 ROBERT MOORE,
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
13 v.
[ECF No. 14]
14 JOE LANKFORD, MERCEDES ARELLANO, R.
BUCKEL, AND DAVID STROMSKI,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19 The instant matter was initiated on December 16, 2019 when Plaintiff, an inmate
20 proceeding and , filed a complaint under the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C.
21 § 1983. ECF No. 1; see also ECF No. 6 (order granting Plaintiff’s motion to proceed
22 ). On May 12, 2020, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 11. Defendants
23 move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on the grounds that “Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
24 administrative remedies prior to filing suit, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act
25 (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)” and “for failure to state an Eighth Amendment claim upon which
26 relief may be granted.” Id. at 2. That same day, the Court issued an order setting briefing
27 schedule requiring Plaintiff to file his opposition to the motion on or before June 22, 2020 and
28 Defendants to reply on or before July 6, 2020. ECF No. 12.
1 On May 26, 2020, Plaintiff submitted a Motion to Amend Complaint that was received by
2 the Court on June 1, 2020 and accepted on discrepancy on June 5, 2020. ECF Nos. 13 & 14.
3 Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court designating the documents submitted with the instant
4 motion as Exhibit B to his complaint [see ECF No. 1]. ECF No. 14 at 2. In support, Plaintiff
5 states that he needs to add Exhibit B to his complaint to “satisfy defendants claim of the plaintiff
6 not satisfying exhausting the administrative means.” Id. Plaintiff notes that he was unable to
7 submit the exhibit when he filed his complaint because he only had one year to file his complaint
8 and the “3rd level was not within its time limits.” Id. He received the Exhibit after his complaint
9 was filed “due to circumstances beyond [his] control.” Id. Plaintiff further notes that the exhibit
10 will address the concerns raised in Defendants’ motion to dismiss [see ECF No. 11]. Plaintiff
11 also requests that the Court order Defendants to answer his complaint. Id. at 3.
12 Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend its
13 pleading once as a matter of course
14
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
15
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after
16
service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule
17 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.
18 “Unless the court orders otherwise, any required response to an amended pleading must be
19 made within the time remaining to respond to the original pleading or within 14 days after
20 service of the amended pleading, whichever is later.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3). Here, Defendants
21 served their Rule 12(b)(6) motion on May 12, 2020. ECF No. 11 at 13. Plaintiff sought to amend
22 his pleading on May 26, 2020, less than twenty-one days later. ECF No. 14. Accordingly,
23 Plaintiff may amend his complaint as a matter of course.
24 While Plaintiff’s motion is entitled Motion to Amend the Complaint, he does not seek to
25 add any new claims or parties and only wishes to supplement his complaint with the attachments
26 to his motion. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d), a court in its discretion may “permit a party to
27 serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened
28 after the date of the pleading supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). The purpose of Fed. R.
1 Civ. P. 15(d) “is to promote as complete an adjudication of the dispute between the parties as
2 possible.” Grano v. Sodexo Management, Inc., 2020 WL 2111898, at *9 (S.D. Cal., May 4, 2020)
3 (quoting William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Cont'l Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1057 (9th
4 Cir. 1981)). A supplemental pleading is designed to bring the action “up to date and to set forth
5 new facts affecting the controversy that may have occurred since the original pleading was
6 filed.” Brown v. Deputy No. 1, c, at *6 (S.D. Cal., Oct. 8, 2013) (citing Manning v. City of
7 Auburn, 953 F.3d 1355, 1259–60 (11th Cir. 1992)). “This distinguishes it from an amended
8 pleading, which relates to matters existing when the original pleading was filed.” Id. (citing
9 ConnectU LLC v. Zuckerberg, 522 F.3d 82, 90 (1st Cir. 2008)). Plaintiff filed his complaint on
10 December 16, 2019 . ECF No. 1. The first document that he wishes to add to his complaint is
11 a letter from the Office of Appeals Third Level Decision dated March 20, 2020. ECF No. 14 at 4.
12 This letter did not exist prior to the filing of Plaintiff’s complaint.1 Because the remaining
13 documents predate the filing of Plaintiff’s complaint, they are not in line with Fed. R. Civ. P.
14 15(d). However, the paperwork that Plaintiff wishes to use to supplement his complaint is
15 related to the allegations that Plaintiff has made in his complaint, concerns the same parties,
16 and is not intended to superseded his previous complaint, but to supplement it. In light of
17 Plaintiff’s status and the Court’s duty to construe pleadings liberally, the Court will
18 consider the exhibits as part of Plaintiff’s complaint. See Soares v. Paramo, 2014 WL 4358473,
19 at *1 n.2. (S.D. Cal., Aug. 5, 2014) (noting that plaintiff’s supplemental claims were “not
20 technically a supplemental complaint as defined by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d)” because they occurred
21 prior to the filing of his original complaint, but finding that “because Plaintiff is proceeding
22 without counsel, and the Court finds the allegations in his Supplemental Pleading are clearly
23 related to those alleged in his original complaint against the same named Defendants, yet are
24 not intended to supersede his previous pleading, it shall consider the claims in Plaintiff's
25
26
1 Two of the documents attached to Plaintiff’s motion are already included as Exhibits to the
27 complaint. Specifically, Document ECF No. 14 at 15 is already included as an exhibit to the
complaint [see ECF No. 1 at 17, Exh. 7] and Document ECF No. 14 at 13 is already included as
28
1 ||supplemental pleading as though they were included as part of his original complaint.”) (citing
2 || Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir.2003) (“Courts have a duty to
3 construe pro se pleadings liberally, including pro se motions as well as complaints.”); Karim-
4 |) Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.1988) (where a plaintiff appears
5 propria persona in a civil rights case, the Court must construe the pleadings liberally and
6 || afford plaintiff any benefit of the doubt)). Accordingly, Plaintiff's request is GRANTED, and he
7 supplement his complaint. The Clerk's office is ORDERED to add Plaintiff's attachments
8 || to the instant motion [see ECF No. 14 at 4-16] to the complaint [see ECF No. 1] as Exhibit B.
9 || The operative pleading in this action is the Complaint and its supplement. Because Plaintiff's
10 ||motion has been granted, Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss [ECF No. 11] is DENIED AS
11 |}|MOOT. Defendants must respond to Plaintiff's supplemented complaint on or before June 26,
12 || 2020.
13 IT 1S SO ORDERED.
14 ||Dated: 6/12/2020 lxirbee Mager
15 Hon. Barbara L. ajor
16 United States Maaistrate Judae
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28