(PC) Seymour v. Wasco State Prison Administration ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 AARON D. SEYMOUR, Case No. 1:21-cv-01485-AWI-EPG (PC) 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: LODGED SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT 9 v. (ECF No. 24) 10 DOE 1, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 Aaron D. Seymour (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 15 pauperis in this civil rights action. 16 This case is currently proceeding on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of 17 confinement claim against defendants Doe 1, Degough, and Doe 2 based on allegations that the 18 water at Wasco State Prison is contaminated, and that Defendants have not appropriately 19 responded to the issue. (ECF No. 18). All other claims were dismissed. (Id.). 20 On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff lodged a supplemental complaint. (ECF No. 24). 21 However, Plaintiff failed to file a motion for permission to file a supplemental pleading, which 22 is required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) (“On motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just 23 terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, 24 or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.”). Moreover, 25 Plaintiff’s supplemental complaint only includes new allegations. It does not include the 26 claims that are currently proceeding in this case. This is improper. Local Rule 220 (“Unless 27 prior approval to the contrary is obtained from the Court, every pleading to which an 28 amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by court order enn ne eee eon en nnn nnn OO EI me 1 || shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or 2 || superseded pleading.”). 3 Additionally, in Plaintiff's supplemental complaint, Plaintiff complains that Lieutenant 4 || Ledbetter retaliated against him on February 10, 2022, after Plaintiff showed Lieutenant 5 || Ledbetter a copy of his complaint and document(s) showing that the complaint was being 6 served. However, Lieutenant Ledbetter is not a defendant in this action. 7 The Court will take no further action on Plaintiff's lodged supplemental complaint. If 8 || Plaintiff wishes to supplement his complaint in this action, he must file a motion for leave to 9 || supplement his complaint and attach a complaint that includes all potential claims and 10 defendants. The motion for leave to supplement the complaint should include reasons why 11 || these new allegations are sufficiently related to the pending case to be added to this case, rather 12 filed as a separate case. 13 Plaintiff may also file a separate case if he so chooses.! 14 1s IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘6 |! Dated: _ March 16, 2022 [spe ey —— 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 — 24 ' The Court reminds Plaintiff that prisoners are required to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (th 25 || Cir. 2002) (per curiam). The exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and 26 || regardless of the relief offered by the process, unless “the relevant administrative procedure lacks authority to provide any relief or to take any action whatsoever in response to a complaint.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 27 || 736, 741 (2001); see also Ross v. Blake, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1857, 1859 (2016). As discussed in Ross, 136 S.Ct. at 1862, there are no “special circumstances” exceptions to the 28 || exhaustion requirement. The one significant qualifier is that “the remedies must indeed be ‘available’ to the prisoner.” Id. at 1856.