Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01066/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01066-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELVIN FELTON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

J. LOPEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:12-cv-01066-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL

COMPLAINT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. 10.)

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Kelvin Felton (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this

action on June 29, 2012. (Doc. 1.) On August 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a

supplemental complaint. (Doc. 10.) 

II. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

A supplemental complaint, which is different than an amended complaint, adds allegations

to the complaint of events occurring after the original complaint was filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). 

Under Rule 15(d), “the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading

setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be

supplemented.” Id. A party may only file a supplemental complaint with leave of court. Id. When

considering whether to allow a supplemental complaint, the Court considers factors such as whether

1

Case 1:12-cv-01066-AWI-BAM Document 12 Filed 02/13/13 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

allowing supplementation would serve the interests of judicial economy; whether there is evidence

of delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant; whether amendment would impose

undue prejudice upon the opposing party; and whether amendment would be futile. See San Luis

& Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. United States Department of the Interior, 236 F.R.D. 491, 497

(E.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1988), Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178

(1962), and Planned Parenthood of S. Ariz. v. Neely, 130 F.3d 400 (9th Cir. 1997)). 

Plaintiff seeks leave to supplement the Complaint to add allegations of excessive force

against defendant C/O J. Lopez based on an incident occurring after the original Complaint was filed

on June 29, 2012. He has provided a copy of a Form-602 inmate appeal which he submitted on July

20, 2012, in which he alleges that as he was leaving the dining hall, C/O J. Lopez pushed him from

behind for no reason and extended his baton, attempting to provoke an altercation. Plaintiff asserts

that he placed the Form-602 appeal in the assigned out box, but it was lost and he was instructed on

August 10, 2012 to re-submit it. 

Discussion

In a concurrently filed order, the Court found that Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on June 29,

2012 states cognizable claims for excessive force against defendants C/O Lopez and C/O Harrison. 

In the motion for leave to supplement the Complaint, Plaintiff indicates that defendant C/O Lopez

continues to use force unnecessarily against him, and Plaintiff wishes to make additional allegations

against Lopez for excessive force which occurred after the original Complaint was filed. The Court

finds that supplementation of the Complaint with these new allegations would serve the interests of

judicial economy because Plaintiff’s related claims would be included in one lawsuit. However, it

appears, from Plaintiff’s assertion – that his appeal was lost and was instructed to re-submit it -- that

he has not exhausted his remedies for the new excessive force claim. Prisoners are required to

exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211,

127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Section 1997e(a) mandates that "[n]o action shall be brought ... until [the prisoner's] administrative

remedies ... are exhausted," 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and “requires that a prisoner exhaust

administrative remedies before submitting any papers to the federal courts," Vaden v. Summerhill,

2

Case 1:12-cv-01066-AWI-BAM Document 12 Filed 02/13/13 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

449 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added). Before Plaintiff can successfully bring new

allegations in a supplemental complaint, he must first exhaust the available administrative remedies

for the new claim. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010). Therefore, it would be

futile for Plaintiff to file a supplemental complaint before he has exhausted his available remedies

for the new claim. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court shall deny Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental

complaint, without prejudice to renewal of the motion with submission of Plaintiff’s declaration,

signed under penalty of perjury, that he has exhausted all available administrative remedies for the

new excessive force claim against defendant C/O Lopez.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental

complaint, filed on August 24, 2012, is DENIED, without prejudice to renewal of the motion as

instructed by this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 12, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:12-cv-01066-AWI-BAM Document 12 Filed 02/13/13 Page 3 of 3