Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04814/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04814-6/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORENZO R. CUNNINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEDTRONIC INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04814-HSG (PR) 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL

COMPLAINT; DENYING DEFENDANT 

BURCH’S MOTION TO DISMISS; 

DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SERVICE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 40, 48, 51

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner incarcerated at the California Healthcare Facility, filed 

this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional and state tort violations 

arising out of a 2012 surgery during which he had rods installed in his back. The surgery was 

performed by defendant UCSF Medical Doctor Shane Burch (“Burch”), and the rods were 

manufactured by a company acquired by defendant Medtronic, Inc (“Medtronic”). In an order 

filed March 2, 2015, the Court screened the complaint (Dkt. No. 1), and determined that it stated 

the following cognizable claims: (1) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against 

defendant Burch; (2) a supplemental state law negligence claim against defendant Burch; and 

(3) supplemental state law product liability claims against defendant Medtronic. See Dkt. No. 18. 

Now before the Court are: (1) plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental complaint; (2) defendant 

Burch’s motion to dismiss; and (3) plaintiff’s motion for service.

DISCUSSION

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to File a Supplemental Complaint

Plaintiff has filed a motion to file a supplemental complaint pursuant Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 15(d). Dkt. No. 40. The Court first decides whether plaintiff’s motion is more 

appropriately considered a Rule 15(d) motion for leave to file a supplemental pleading or a Rule 

15(a) motion for leave to amend. Amended pleadings under Rule 15(a) “relate to matters that 

Case 4:14-cv-04814-HSG Document 52 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 3
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 California

occurred prior to the filing of the original pleading, and entirely replace the earlier pleading.” 6A 

Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1504 

(3d. ed. 1998). In contrast, supplemental pleadings under Rule 15(d) “deal with events subsequent 

to the pleading to be altered and represent additions to or continuations of the earlier pleadings.” 

Id. Rule 15(d) enables plaintiffs to “introduce[] a cause of action not alleged in the original 

complaint and not in existence when the original complaint was filed.” Cabrera v. City of 

Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 382 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

Along with his motion, plaintiff has filed a list of his proposed supplemental claims. Dkt. 

No. 40-1. A review of these claims shows that the facts underlying them occurred prior to the 

filing of the original complaint.1 Consequently, plaintiff’s request will be construed as a motion 

for leave to amend pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Civil Local Rule 10-1 provides that any party moving to file an amended pleading must 

reproduce the entire proposed pleading and may not incorporate any part of a prior pleading by 

reference. Plaintiff has not included with his motion a proposed amended complaint. Parties may 

not file piecemeal complaints or amendments that contain portions of claims and defendants. 

Therefore, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED for this reason. However, denial is without prejudice to 

filing another motion submitted with a proposed amended complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned that, 

because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include 

in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 

1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. 

2. Defendant Burch’s Motion to Dismiss

Defendant Burch has filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint. Dkt. No. 51. 

 

1

The only possible exception is plaintiff’s proposed supplemental claims that defendants failed to 

preserve evidence. See Dkt. No. 40-1 at 8-9. Even assuming these claims relate to matters that 

arose after the filing of the original complaint, they do not state a claim for relief. California does 

not recognize a spoliation tort cause of action “against a person who has intentionally destroyed or 

suppressed evidence relevant to a lawsuit.” Warden v. Cross, 94 Fed. Appx. 474, 475 (9th Cir. 

2004) (applying California law); see also Temple Cmty. Hosp. v. Superior Ct., 20 Cal. 4th 464, 

473 (1999) (holding that a tort remedy for spoliation of evidence would produce an “endless spiral 

of lawsuits over litigation-related misconduct”). The Court therefore need not decide whether 

plaintiff should be able to supplement his original complaint with these claims.

Case 4:14-cv-04814-HSG Document 52 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 3
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 California

Therein, he argues that the original complaint does not state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

and that this Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The motion is DENIED because the 

Court has already determined that plaintiff’s allegations, when liberally construed, do state federal 

claims for relief. Defendant’s arguments are better raised in a motion for summary judgment.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Service

Plaintiff has filed a motion asking the Court to serve defendant Burch. Dkt. No. 48. The 

motion is DENIED as moot, as defendant Burch has been served and has now appeared through 

counsel.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental complaint, construed as a motion for leave 

to amend, is DENIED without prejudice.

2. Defendant Burch’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for service is DENIED as moot.

4. If plaintiff intends to file a renewed motion for leave to amend pursuant to Rule 

15(a), he must do so within twenty-eight (28) days from the date this order is filed. The motion 

must include a proposed amended complaint with the caption and civil case number used in this 

order Lorenzo R. Cunningham v. Medtronic, Inc. et al., C 14-4814 HSG (PR) and the words 

[PROPOSED] AMENDED COMPLAINT. If plaintiff does not wish to file an amended 

complaint, he shall so inform the Court within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this order, 

and the Court will thereafter set a briefing schedule for dispositive motions.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 40, 48, and 51.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

12/8/2015

Case 4:14-cv-04814-HSG Document 52 Filed 12/08/15 Page 3 of 3