Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-01115/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-01115-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JACOB S. SILVERMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DUANE CHRISTIAN, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 18-01115 BLF (PR) 

ORDER ADDRESSING PENDING 

MOTIONS 

 (Docket Nos. 37, 39, 41, 48, 49) 

Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against jail officials at Humboldt County Jail. The Court herein 

addresses several pending motions in this matter: Plaintiff’s request for a copy of is 

deposition, (Docket No. 37); Plaintiff’s motion for leave to add a Fourteenth Amendment 

claim, (Docket No. 39); Plaintiff’s motion to amend/correct his opposition, (Docket No. 

41); Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s affidavit and supplemental arguments and 

claims, (Docket No. 48); and Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s reply to Defendants’ 

reply, (Docket No. 49). 

/// 

/// 

Case 5:18-cv-01115-BLF Document 52 Filed 05/10/19 Page 1 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

DISCUSSION 

A. Request for Copy of Deposition 

 Plaintiff requests that Defendants produce a copy of his deposition, asserting that 

they have not done so and only refer to it in “pieces” in their summary judgment motion. 

(Docket No. 37.) Plaintiff relies on Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) 

Defendants oppose the request, asserting that Rule 34 does not govern discovery motions 

and that they are not required to provide Plaintiff with a copy of his deposition transcript. 

(Docket No. 44.) 

The request for Defendants to produce a copy of his deposition is DENIED. Even 

assuming Plaintiff may make such a request under Rule 34, Defendants are not required to 

provide Plaintiff a copy of his deposition transcript. As Defendants point out, they noticed 

Plaintiff’s deposition pursuant to Rule 30, which requires the court reporter to furnish a 

copy of the transcript to the requesting party “upon payment of reasonable charges.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3); (Docket No. 44 at 2.) Plaintiff must obtain a copy of his deposition 

transcript from the court reporter who recorded his deposition and make proper payment 

and may not avoid such expenses by requesting Defendants produce a copy of it. 

Plaintiff’s pauper status merely permits him to proceed without full payment of the filing 

fees at the outset of this action and does not exempt him from other costs related to the 

pursuit of this action. 

B. Motion to Amend to Add Fourteenth Amendment Claim 

Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to add a new claim under the Fourteenth 

Amendment, asserting that newly named Defendants, including the Humboldt County 

Correctional Facility (“HCCF”), has a policy that obstructs disciplinary hearing processes 

which violates fair hearings and due process. (Docket No. 39.) Defendants oppose the 

motion, asserting that the amendment violates Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. (Docket No. 45 at 3-4.) 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) provides for three different situations where 

Case 5:18-cv-01115-BLF Document 52 Filed 05/10/19 Page 2 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

an amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. First, an amendment 

relates back when “the law that provides the applicable statute of limitations allows 

relation back.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(A). Second, an amendment relates back when it 

“asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out–

or attempted to be set out–in the original pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B). Third, an 

amendment relates back if the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party 

against whom a claim is asserted if Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied “and if, within the period 

provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons and complaint, the party to be brought in 

by amendment: (i) received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in 

defending on the merits; and (ii) knew or should have known that the action would have 

been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B). 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is DENIED. Even assuming that the claim is 

not barred by the statute of limitations, the new claim does not arise out of the same 

conduct, transaction, or occurrence as in the original pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B). 

The instant action involves ongoing First Amendment violations by Defendants Duane 

Christian and Dean Flint based on the denial of Plaintiff’s right to petition the government 

for redress of grievances beginning late 2016 through early 2018. (Compl. at 3, Attach.; 

Docket No. 18.) Plaintiff’s new claim involves the Fourteenth Amendment, a wholly 

different set of Defendants, and is based solely on an incident that occurred in October 

2016. (Docket No. 39 at 2; Compl., Attach. 1-G.) While leave to permit supplemental 

pleading is favored, it cannot be used to introduce a separate, distinct and new cause of 

action. See Planned Parenthood of So. Arizona v. Neely, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 

1997). Matters newly alleged in a supplemental complaint must have some relation to the 

claim(s) set forth in the original pleading. See Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 474 (9th Cir. 

1988). There is no such relation here between the claims in the original complaint and 

those presented in Plaintiff’s motion. 

Case 5:18-cv-01115-BLF Document 52 Filed 05/10/19 Page 3 of 5
4 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Supplemental pleading by a plaintiff is optional; claims not filed in a supplemental 

complaint may be filed in a separate lawsuit. See Manning v. City of Auburn, 953 F.2d 

1355, 1359-60 (11th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, Plaintiff may pursue the claims in his 

motion to amend in a separate lawsuit. 

C. Motion to Amend/Correct Opposition 

Plaintiff’s motion to “add-in corrective insertions” into his opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. (Docket No. 41.) The Court 

will take into account these corrections when reviewing Plaintiff’s opposition. 

D. Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Affidavit 

 Plaintiff filed an “affidavit amid supplemental arguments and claims and authorities 

supported by facts in support of Plaintiff’s opposition.” (Docket No. 43.) The affidavit 

was filed on March 29, 2019, the same day Defendants’ reply was filed. (Id.; Docket No. 

42.) Defendants filed a motion to strike this affidavit pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure because it contains supplemental claims that are immaterial and 

impertinent to his First Amendment claim. (Docket No. 48 at 3.) Plaintiff’s affidavit 

contains allegations of adverse actions for a retaliation claim. (Docket No. 43 at 2.) As 

Defendants point out, Plaintiff’s complaint contains no allegations of retaliation and he has 

not sought leave to amend to add such an allegation. (Id. at 3.) The Court agrees that 

Plaintiff is clearly attempting to add a new claim to this action, and that his manner of 

doing so is improper at this late juncture. In his opposition to Defendants’ motion, 

Plaintiff provides no explanation as to why he waited nearly a year since the matter was 

served on May 9, 2018, to raise this new claim. (Docket No. 51.) Accordingly, 

Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s affidavit is GRANTED. 

E. Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply 

After Defendants filed their reply to Plaintiff’s opposition, Plaintiff filed a surreply. (Docket No. 46.) Defendants filed a motion to strike this sur-reply. (Docket No. 

49.) In the order of service, the Court stated that any dispositive motion filed by 

Case 5:18-cv-01115-BLF Document 52 Filed 05/10/19 Page 4 of 5
5 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Defendants would be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. (Docket No. 

5 at 6.) Nor did Plaintiff obtain court approval prior to filing the additional papers as 

required under Local Rule 7-3(d). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s 

sur-reply is GRANTED. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons state above, the Court orders as follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s request for production of his deposition transcript is DENIED. 

(Docket No. 37.) Plaintiff may obtain a copy directly from the court reporter with proper 

payment. Plaintiff’s motion to amend to add a new claim is DENIED. (Docket No. 39.) 

Plaintiff may file it as a new action. Plaintiff’s motion amend/correct his opposition is 

GRANTED. (Docket No. 41.) 

 2. Defendants’ motions to strike Plaintiff’s affidavit and sur-reply are 

GRANTED. (Docket Nos. 48 and 49.) 

 This order terminates Docket Nos. 37, 39, 41, 48, and 49. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order Addressing Pending Motions 

PRO-SE\BLF\CR.18\01115Silverman_motions 

Case 5:18-cv-01115-BLF Document 52 Filed 05/10/19 Page 5 of 5