Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01894/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01894-15/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

IRVIN VAN BUREN,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. WADDLE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:14-cv-01894-DAD-MJS

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 

MOTION FOR EXETSNION OF TIME TO 

FILE OBJECTIONS, AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT 

THE COMPLAINT

(Doc. Nos. 49, 78, 80)

Plaintiff Irvin Van Buren is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action 

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (“SAC”) on July 21, 

2016. (Doc. No. 49.) The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations on 

February 1, 2017, construing the motion as requesting leave to file a supplemental complaint 

because plaintiff’s proposed new allegations concerned incidents occurring after the filing of this 

civil rights action. The magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s motion for leave to 

supplement his complaint be denied because the facts and claims proposed to be added involved 

new constitutional allegations against new defendants based on separate legal wrongs from those 

originally found by the court to be cognizable in this action. (Doc. No. 78.) The findings and 

Case 1:14-cv-01894-DAD-MJS Document 83 Filed 03/16/17 Page 1 of 3
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

recommendations were served on all parties, and contained notice that any objection must be filed 

within fourteen days of service. On March 3, 2017, plaintiff filed objections, along with a motion 

requesting equitable tolling of the fourteen-day objection deadline provided for in the findings 

and recommendations. (Doc. Nos. 80, 81.) In this regard, plaintiff asserts he was unable to 

access either the law library or his personal property and was therefore unable to respond to 

findings and recommendations in a timely manner. (Doc. No. 80.) The undersigned will grant 

plaintiff’s motion construed as a one for an extension of time to file objections and will consider 

the objections he has filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

undersigned concludes the findings and recommendation are supported by the record and by 

proper analysis. Plaintiff asserts he was “denied due process rights in the exact same manner” at 

subsequent Rule Violation Report (“RVR”) hearings as he was during the RVR hearing contested 

in his original complaint. (Doc. No. 81 at 3.) Assuming that to be the case, the fact that an 

alleged constitutional violation was committed in the same way does not create the necessary 

relationship to warrant adding claims arising from different proceedings conducted on different 

issues by different defendants at a significantly later date to this lawsuit. Planned Parenthood of 

S. Ariz. V. Neely, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997) (supplemental pleadings “cannot be used to 

introduce a ‘separate, distinct and new cause of action’”) (quoting Berssenbrugge v. Luce Mfg. 

Co., 30 F. Supp. 101, 102 (D. Mo. 1939)). As observed by the assigned magistrate judge, if 

plaintiff wishes to pursue his proposed new claims, they are properly brought in a separate 

complaint filed in a new civil action.

Based on the foregoing,

1. The findings and recommendations issued February 1, 2017 (Doc. No. 78) are adopted 

in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for equitable tolling of the deadline to object to the findings and 

recommendations (Doc. No. 80), construed as a request for an extension of time to file objections, 

is granted; and

Case 1:14-cv-01894-DAD-MJS Document 83 Filed 03/16/17 Page 2 of 3
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

3

3. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Doc. No. 49) is 

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2017 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01894-DAD-MJS Document 83 Filed 03/16/17 Page 3 of 3