Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01134/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01134-5/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

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

SPENCER E. BERRY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HARRINGTON, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:15-cv-01134-LJO-EPG-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FILED ON JANUARY 13, 

2016 AS MOOT

(ECF No. 21.)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF

LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AS INSTRUCTED BY 

THIS ORDER

(ECF No. 22.)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Spencer E. Berry (“Plaintiff”), is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and 

in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the 

Complaint commencing this action on July 13, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint awaits the 

Court’s requisite screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

On December 16, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a proposed supplemental complaint which 

was lodged by the Court. (ECF No. 18.) On January 5, 2016, the Court issued an order 

addressing the lodged supplemental complaint, advising Plaintiff that he is not permitted to file 

a supplemental complaint without leave of Court, and he neglected to file a motion requesting 

leave to supplement his complaint and stating the grounds for supplementation. (ECF No. 19.) 

Plaintiff was advised that his supplemental complaint will remain lodged with no further action 

taken unless he files a motion seeking leave to supplement the complaint that identifies the 

grounds supporting the motion. (Id.)

Case 1:15-cv-01134-LJO-EPG Document 25 Filed 04/22/16 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

On January 13, 2016 Plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave to file the supplemental 

complaint lodged on December 16, 2015. (ECF No. 21.) On March 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a 

motion to file a new supplemental complaint. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff’s motions are now 

before the Court.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Supplemental Complaints B Rule 15(d)

Under Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). 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 

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)). 

B. Leave to Amend – Rule 15(a)

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the 

party’s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. 

Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the Court or by written consent of the adverse 

party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 

III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

A. Motion filed on January 13, 2016 (ECF No. 21.)

In Plaintiff’s motion filed on January 13, 2016, Plaintiff requests leave to file the 

supplemental complaint lodged on December 16, 2015 (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff seeks to add 

allegations to the complaint of events occurring after the original Complaint was filed on July 

Case 1:15-cv-01134-LJO-EPG Document 25 Filed 04/22/16 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

13, 2015. Plaintiff’s original Complaint arose from events which occurred at the California 

Correctional Institution (CCI) in Tehachapi in 2014 and early 2015. The crux of Plaintiff’s 

claims is that Dr. Harold Tate, his primary care physician at CCI, violated his rights under the 

Eighth Amendment by failing to provide appropriate medical care for Plaintiff’s chronic pain 

issue. Plaintiff disagreed with the course of treatment prescribed by Dr. Tate and he contends 

that when he complained, Dr. Tate retaliated against him by ordering his medication be crushed 

and floated. In addition, Dr. Tate allegedly terminated a meeting with Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff is now incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison (CSP) and alleges that he is being 

denied adequate medical care at CSP by several medical officials named in the supplemental 

complaint.

B. Motion filed on March 4, 2016 (ECF No. 22.)

In Plaintiff’s motion filed on March 4, 2016, he advises the Court that he has received 

new information since he filed the January 13, 2016 motion. Plaintiff has now identified his 

Doe Defendant in the supplemental complaint as Anthony Enenmoh, Chief Medical Executive 

at CSP. Plaintiff also requests leave to add another CSP medical official to the supplemental 

complaint, Y. Mansour, for denying him adequate medical care at CSP, based on Y. Mansour’s 

decisions against Plaintiff on February 22, 2016 during the prison appeals process. Plaintiff 

claims that these defendants’ actions violated state tort law and the Eighth Amendment. 

Plaintiff now seeks to file a new supplemental complaint incorporating his allegations against 

defendants Enenmoh and Mansour. 

IV. Discussion

The Court shall deny Plaintiff’s motion filed on January 13, 2016 as moot, on the basis 

of Plaintiff’s subsequent motion which adds new information and changes Plaintiff’s request. 

The Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff’s request in his motion filed on March 4, 

2016, to add allegations and claims to the complaint arising from events occurring at CSP after 

the original Complaint was filed on July 13, 2015. However, instead of filing a supplemental 

complaint, Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint within thirty days. 

///

Case 1:15-cv-01134-LJO-EPG Document 25 Filed 04/22/16 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

Because Plaintiff has not amended the complaint, and no responsive pleading has been 

served in this action, Plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint as a matter of course. 

However, as discussed above, Plaintiff requires leave of Court to add allegations and claims 

arising from events occurring after the original Complaint was filed. The Court shall grant 

Plaintiff leave to add after-occurring events in the First Amended Complaint. 

Plaintiff is advised that the First Amended Complaint will supercede the original 

Complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F 3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it 

must be complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading. Local Rule 

220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the claims and defendants in the prior complaint are 

no longer at issue. Therefore, in the First Amended Complaint, as in an original complaint, 

each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The First 

Amended Complaint must incorporate all of the defendants and claims with which Plaintiff 

wishes to proceed, including those from the original Complaint and those arising at CSP which 

Plaintiff wishes to add. If Plaintiff files a First Amended Complaint, the Court will screen that 

complaint. The First Amended Complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First Amended 

Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of 

perjury. 

Plaintiff must demonstrate in his amended complaint how the conditions complained of 

have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 

227 (9th Cir. 1980). The amended complaint must allege in specific terms how each named 

defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 unless there is some 

affirmative link or connection between a defendant=s actions and the claimed deprivation. 

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); 

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion filed on January 13, 2016 is DENIED as moot; 

///

Case 1:15-cv-01134-LJO-EPG Document 25 Filed 04/22/16 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

2. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave, pursuant to his motion filed on March 4, 2016, to 

add allegations to the complaint of events occurring after the original Complaint 

was filed;

3. The Clerk of the Court shall send one civil rights complaint form to Plaintiff;

4. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a First 

Amended Complaint using the Court’s form, incorporating all of the defendants 

and claims with which he wishes to proceed;

5. The First Amended Complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First 

Amended Complaint,” refer to case number 1:15-cv-01134-LJO-EPG-PC, and 

be an original signed under penalty of perjury; and

6. Plaintiff is warned that the failure to comply with this order may result in the 

dismissal of this action for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01134-LJO-EPG Document 25 Filed 04/22/16 Page 5 of 5