(PC) Nedd v. Landon ( 2024 )

1 Order 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFEREY S. NEDD, Case No. 1:23-cv-01630-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENT TO 13 v. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 LANDON BIRD, (Doc. No. 22) 15 Defendant 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave to File Supplemental Complaint. 18 (Doc. No. 22, “Motion”). In it, Plaintiff seeks leave to supplement his Third Amended 19 Complaint. (See id.). The undersigned previously issued a Findings and Recommendations 20 (“F&R”) to dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint without leave to amend for failure to 21 state a claim. (Doc. No. 17). The district court recently granted Plaintiff two extensions of time 22 to file objections to the F&R, and Plaintiff’s objections to the pending F&R are due to be 23 delivered to correctional officials for mailing no later than July 11, 2024. (See Doc. Nos. 20, 23). 24 For reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion and reminds Plaintiff of his need 25 to file objections to the F&R. 26 The court may, on terms that are just, permit a party to file a supplemental pleading 27 addressing events occurring after the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 15(d). Leave to file a supplemental complaint is at the discretion of the court. See id.; 1 Howard v. City of Coos Bay, 871 F.3d 1032, 1040 (9th Cir. 2017). Rule 15(d) applies in pro se 2 prisoner actions and, when properly used, is not in conflict with the dictates of the Prison 3 Litigation Reform Act. Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1003-07 (9th Cir. 2010). In 4 exercising this discretion, a court may consider: (1) the relation between the original and 5 supplemental complaints; (2) the interests of judicial economy; (3) evidence of delay, bad faith, 6 or dilatory motive on the part of the moving party; (4) the prejudice to the opposing party if the 7 court permitted the filing of the supplemental complaint; and (5) the futility of amendment. See 8 Williams v. Calif. Dep't of Corrections, 2019 WL 6918206, at *3 n.2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2019); 9 San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 236 F.R.D. 491, 497 (E.D. 10 Cal. 2006); Bradford v. Ogbuehi, 2021 WL 2188130, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 28, 2021). 11 Here, the undersigned previously determined that granting Plaintiff further leave to amend 12 his complaint would be futile because he was unable to state a cognizable federal claim after 13 being afforded three opportunities to amend. (Doc. No. 17 at 9-10). Plaintiff’s Motion does not 14 alter the Court’s analysis. In his Motion, Plaintiff seeks to include additional facts regarding his 15 First Amendment access to courts claim. Specifically, Plaintiff states that he sent requests for his 16 mail log on March 14, 2023; March 20, 2023; March 25, 2023; April 10, 2023; and April 20, 17 2023 with no reply. (Doc. No. 22 at 2). He attaches to the Motion a copy of his mail log. (Id. at 18 6-20). Plaintiff, however, does not explain how these the dates in his mail log attached to his 19 Motion render his access to courts claim viable. Nor is it readily apparent to the Court how the 20 dates in the mail log render his access to court claim viable. Because Plaintiff’s Motion fails to 21 articulate how the filing of the supplement to his Third Amended Complaint would render his 22 claims viable, the Court finds the supplement is futile and denies the Motion. To the extent 23 Plaintiff contends that these additional dates are relevant, he may include them or his mail log 24 along with his objections to the Court’s March 20, 2024 F&R. 25 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 26 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supplement to his Third Amended Complaint 27 (Doc. No. 22) is DENIED. 28 2. Plaintiff shall deliver his objections, if any, to the Court’s March 20, 2024 Findings 1 and Recommendations to correctional officials for mailing no later than July 11, 2 2024, in accordance with the Court’s June 11, 2024 Minute Order (Doc. No. 23). 3 3. If Plaintiff fails to timely file objections, the Court will deem the March 20, 2024 4 Findings and Recommendations submitted for consideration by the District Court. 5 ° | Dated: _ June 14, 2024 law □□□ foareA Zacks 7 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28