Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01021/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01021-16/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT COLEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1021 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, and is proceeding in forma pauperis. On November 16, 2015, plaintiff filed a 

document entitled “Motion for Amendment to Conform to the Evidence Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 15(b).” (ECF No. 76.) Plaintiff claims that he filed a motion for reconsideration on August 4, 

2015, and because no decision has yet been rendered, he seeks a motion for amendment to 

conform to the evidence. Plaintiff seeks to revisit his arguments concerning the exhaustion of 

administrative remedies. (ECF No. 76, passim.)

First, amendment of the complaint is not appropriate to address the issue of exhaustion of 

administrative remedies because exhaustion is an affirmative defense that is not required to be 

addressed in the complaint. But even if he properly sought leave to amend, his motion was not 

accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. As a prisoner, plaintiff’s pleadings are subject 

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 78 Filed 12/18/15 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

27

28

2

to evaluation by this court pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Because plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint, the court is unable to evaluate it.

Second, the issue of exhaustion has been fully briefed. Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration was construed as objections to the July 22, 2015 findings and recommendations, 

which ruled on defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the 

motion for summary judgment and defendants filed a reply. Local Rule 230(l). To the extent 

plaintiff seeks to revisit or supplement arguments made in conjunction with the motion for 

summary judgment, such belated efforts are not permitted. In addition, the findings and 

recommendations provided for the filing of objections by plaintiff, and a reply by defendants. No 

additional filings were permitted. (ECF No. 67.) 

Finally, the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies has now been decided. (ECF 

No. 77.) If plaintiff seeks to further challenge the issue of exhaustion, he may do so on appeal 

once final judgment in this matter is entered. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 16, 2015 motion 

(ECF No. 76) is denied without prejudice.

Dated: December 18, 2015

/cole1021.den

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 78 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 2