(PC) Cortinas v. Gill, Jr. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY WILLIAMS CORTINAS, Case No. 1:18-cv-00515-NONE-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE 13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING 14 RAVIJOT GILL, JR., et al., FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 36) 16 17 Plaintiff Larry Williams Cortinas, a state prisoner, initiated this action on April 10, 2018 18 by filing a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff is 19 proceeding on his first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 17). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion 20 to file a supplemental complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d). (Doc. No. 36). It 21 is within the court’s discretion as to whether to permit the filing of a supplemental 22 complaint. Howard v. City of Coos Bay, 871 F.3d 1032, 1040 (9th Cir. 2017) (“only at the 23 district court's discretion are parties permitted to file a supplemental complaint”). 24 In his one-page motion, Plaintiff states that “parties acting” behalf of Defendants are 25 retaliating against him due to his filing of the instant complaint. (Id.). The Court finds the 26 motion procedurally deficient. Under Local Rule 137(c), where a party moves to file a document 27 which requires leave of Court, such as a supplemental pleading, the party “shall attach the 28 1 | document proposed to be filed as an exhibit to moving papers seeking such leave and lodge a 2 | proposed order.” The undersigned is unable to exercise any discretion whether to permit the 3 | supplemental pleading from Plaintiff’s sparse motion. 4 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: 5 Plaintiff's motion to file a supplemental pleading (Doc. No. 22) be DENIED without 6 | prejudice. 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES 8 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 9 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen 10 || (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written 11 || objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 12 | Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 13 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 14 | 838-39 (Oth Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 15 '© | Dated: _ August 24, 2021 Mile. Wh. foareh Zaskth 17 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ig UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28