Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00229/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00229-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY PERCIVAL , 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-0229 LKK EFB P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendant s. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On September 5, 2006, plaintiff sought leave of court to amend or supplement

his complaint, stating that at the time he filed his complaint he neglected to allege that the Rules

Violation Report filed against him by defendant Reyes was done so in retaliation for plaintiff’s

filing of an inmate grievance. The court must liberally construe a complaint in the light most

favorable to a pro se plaintiff. It has already done so here. The September 27, 2007, findings

and recommendations construe plaintiff’s claim against defendant Reyes as stating a claim for

retaliation, and recommend denial of summary judgment as to that defendant. Another pleading

restating the same claims is redundant. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request is denied.

Further, a motion to amend must be accompanied by a proposed amended complaint,

complete in and of itself without any reference to the previous pleading sought to be amended. 

Case 2:03-cv-00229-LKK -EFB Document 107 Filed 11/14/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

See Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff has not submitted a proposed amended complaint. His request

is therefore denied on those bases as well.

Plaintiff is further advised that supplements to pleadings are only appropriate where, as is

not the case here, a plaintiff seeks to allege harms resulting from transactions or occurrences or

events that have happened since the filing of the pleading sought to be supplemented. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. Rule 15(d). Plaintiff’s request to supplement his complaint is therefore denied. 

Finally, the court notes that findings and recommendations filed on September 27, 2007,

which recommended granting defendants’ motion to dismiss defendants Arong and Smith, 

allowed plaintiff 20 days in which to file objections. Plaintiff failed to timely file objections. 

However, on October 29, plaintiff filed a change of address and it appears that he either did not

receive this court’s findings and recommendations or did not have adequate time to submit any

objections thereto. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s September 5, 2006, request to amend or supplement his complaint is

denied;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall reserve the September 27, 2007, findings and

recommendations on plaintiff at his new address of record, together with a copy of this order;

and

3. Plaintiff is granted a period of 20 days from the date this order is served in which

to file objections to the court’s September 27, 2007, findings and recommendations. Failure to

file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991).

Dated: November 13, 2007.

Case 2:03-cv-00229-LKK -EFB Document 107 Filed 11/14/07 Page 2 of 2