Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02038/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02038-7/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

COSME PRESAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KERN MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-02038-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING,

DISREGARDING PROPOSED 

SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT, AND 

DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY 

WITH ORDER FILED APRIL 8, 2015

(Docs. 30 and 31)

Plaintiff Cosme Presas, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 13, 2013. On April, 8, 2015, the Court 

issued an order (1) granting Plaintiff’s two motions for leave to file supplemental complaints, 

subject to filing a second amended complaint that is complete within itself, and (2) disregarding 

Plaintiff’s proposed supplemental complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). On April 17, 2015, Plaintiff 

filed a third motion for leave to file a supplemental pleading, accompanied by his second proposed 

supplemental complaint. Id.

Based on the date Plaintiff signed his motion – April 11, 2015 – it appears Plaintiff may 

have drafted and mailed his filings prior to receiving the Court’s order of April 8, 2015. Plaintiff 

is required to comply with that order if he wishes to either amend or supplement his first amended 

complaint. 

Case 1:13-cv-02038-DAD-SKO Document 32 Filed 04/27/15 Page 1 of 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

2

This is Plaintiff’s third motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint. It, therefore, 

bears emphasis that “[t]he purpose of Rule 15(d) is to promote as complete an adjudication of the 

dispute between the parties as possible by allowing the addition of claims which arise after the 

initial pleadings are filed.” William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Cont’l Baking Co., Inc., 668 

F.2d 1014, 1057 (9th Cir. 1981). Rule 15(d) is not intended to allow Plaintiff to repeatedly add

unnecessary or immaterial facts to his complaint, even if they may be tangentially relevant; the 

purpose of supplementing is to add new claims based on new events or, in some instances, to cure 

deficiencies in the prior pleading based on new events. William Inglis & Sons Baking Co., 668 

F.2d at 1057. 

Based on the order filed on April 8, 2015, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a 

supplemental pleading is HEREBY DENIED; Plaintiff’s proposed supplemental complaint is 

DISREGARDED; and Plaintiff is directed to comply with the order filed on April 8, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02038-DAD-SKO Document 32 Filed 04/27/15 Page 2 of 2