Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01363/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01363-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUPERT FLOWERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVE DAVEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01363-BAM (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT PLEADINGS

(ECF No. 8)

ORDER TO CLERK OF COURT TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Rupert Flowers (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on 

September 15, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). Before the Court could screen Plaintiff’s original complaint, he filed the current

motion to supplement his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d), on November 

21, 2016. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff’s proposed supplemental complaint was attached to that motion.

(Id. at pp. 3-23.)

Rule 15 distinguishes between supplementing and amending a complaint. In an amended 

complaint, a party may replead or add facts or claims arising prior to or contemporaneously with 

Case 1:16-cv-01363-AWI-BAM Document 9 Filed 12/06/16 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

the allegations of the original complaint. See United States v. Hicks, 283 F.3d 380, 385 (D.C. Cir.

2002); Flaherty v. Lang, 199 F.3d 607, 613 n.3 (2d. Cir. 1999). A supplemental complaint 

addresses matters occurring after the original complaint is filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). While 

leave to permit supplemental pleadings 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); see also, 6A Fed. Prac. & Proc Civ. § 1509 (3d ed.) (noting that leave to file 

a supplemental pleading will be denied where “the supplemental pleading could be the subject of 

a separate action”).

Here, Plaintiff’s proposed complaint is not a supplement; instead, it completely re-states 

his original complaint allegations, with a few additional factual allegations that occurred after the 

date of his original complaint. The additional allegations concern the same claims raised and 

defendants sued in his original complaint. Since it appears Plaintiff intends to supersede his 

original complaint in its entirety, the Court construes his motion as a request for leave to amend, 

which is granted. The Court will further direct the Clerk of the Court to file Plaintiff’s

supplemental complaint attached to his motion, as a first amended complaint. The Court will 

screen Plaintiff’s first amended complaint in due course.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to supplement pleadings, filed November 21, 2016 (ECF No. 8) is 

DENIED, as moot; and

2. The Clerk of the Court shall file Plaintiff’s supplemental complaint (ECF No. 8, pp. 3-

23) on the docket as Plaintiff’s first amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01363-AWI-BAM Document 9 Filed 12/06/16 Page 2 of 2