Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00809/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00809-20/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

ANTHONY NGUYEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. D. BITER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00809-AWI-SKO PC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL

COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING CLERK’S

OFFICE TO FILE PROPOSED

SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

(Docs. 70 and 71)

Plaintiff AnthonyNguyen, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 18, 2011. On December 17, 2012, Plaintiff

filed his second motion seeking leave to file a supplemental complaint, accompanied by a proposed

supplemental complaint.

Pursuant to 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Rule 15(d) does not require the moving party to satisfy

a transactional test, but there must still be a relationship between the claim in the original pleading

and the claims sought to be added. Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 474 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Plaintiff asserts he is seeking leave to file a supplemental complaint to set forth “quasiinjuries” which have subsequently developed. (Doc. 70.) “Quasi-injury” is not a recognized term

in this context, but assuming Plaintiff is merely referring to actual injuries which developed after he

filed the original complaint upon which this action proceeds and which are articulated in his 

///

1

Case 1:11-cv-00809-AWI-SKO Document 75 Filed 02/27/13 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

proposed supplemental complaint, Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBYGRANTED and the Clerk’sOffice

shall file in the proposed supplemental complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:11-cv-00809-AWI-SKO Document 75 Filed 02/27/13 Page 2 of 2