Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01578/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01578-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT—No. C-06-01578 RMW

TSF

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-Filed on 9/20/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DOUGLAS F. CARLSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Defendant.

No. C-06-01578 RMW

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT

COMPLAINT

[Re Docket No. 29]

Plaintiff Douglas E. Carlson moves for leave to file a supplemental complaint against

defendant, United States Postal Service, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Defendant opposes the

motion. The court has read the moving and responding papers and finds this matter suitable for

disposition without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies without

prejudice plaintiff's motion for leave to supplement his complaint. 

 I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a self-professed "watchdog" of the defendant, contends that there is "a substantial 

likelihood that the Postal Service is failing to provide adequate and efficient collection services, as

39 U.S.C. § 3661(a) requires." Plaintiff thus files requests pursuant to the Freedom of Information

Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., to "obtain information about postal operations and services to

enable [him] to advocate for improvements in services to customers." The current action involves

plaintiff's motion for leave to supplement his complaint with additional FOIA requests.

Case 5:06-cv-01578-RMW Document 32 Filed 09/20/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT—No. C-06-01578 RMW

TSF 2

II. ANALYSIS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) provides that a party may "serve a supplemental

pleading setting forth transactions or occurrences or events which have happened since the date of

the pleading sought to be supplemented." Here, plaintiff moves to supplement his amended

complaint, but has not informed the court of what he hopes to add. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

7(b) requires that motions "state with particularity the grounds therefor." To ensure particularity in

the motion for leave to supplement a complaint, a complete "copy of the proposed supplemental

pleading must generally be submitted with the motion for leave to file." 71 C.J.S. Pleading § 459

(2007). Without a proposed supplemented complaint, the court cannot determine whether the

information which plaintiff seeks to add to his existing complaint complies with Rule 15(d). 

Nevertheless, rule 15(d) gives district courts broad discretion to permit supplemental

pleadings. Pratt v. Rowland, 769 F. Supp. 1128, 1131 (N.D. Cal. 1991). Furthermore,

[a]s a tool of judicial economy and convenience, application of the rule is favored. 

Supplemental proceedings are deemed so useful . . . that the Ninth Circuit has

recommended that they be allowed "as a matter of course." 

Id. Granting leave to supplement pleadings only becomes inappropriate where there is undue

prejudice to the defendant. Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 475 (9th Cir. 1988). As plaintiff has not

received permission to supplement his complaint, there is no danger of unfair prejudice at the

moment. Accordingly, the court will deny without prejudice plaintiff's motion and grant plaintiff

leave to refile his motion with a proposed supplemented complaint for the court to evaluate.

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES plaintiff's motion for leave to supplement his

complaint without prejudice and grants plaintiff leave to refile his motion with the proposed

supplemental complaint. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of this order to refile his motion

to supplement his complaint. The case management conference set for September 21, 2007 is

continued to November 2, 2007.

DATED: 9/20/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-01578-RMW Document 32 Filed 09/20/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT—No. C-06-01578 RMW

TSF 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Defendant:

Claire T. Cormier claire.cormier@usdoj.gov

James A. Scharf james.scharf@usdoj.gov

Joann M. Swanson joann.swanson@usdoj.gov

Notice of this document has been sent to:

Plaintiff:

Douglas F. Carlson, Pro Se

P.O. Box 7868

Santa Cruz, CA 95061-7868

Dated: 9/20/07 ___________TSF____________________

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-01578-RMW Document 32 Filed 09/20/07 Page 3 of 3