Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01986/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01986-0/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Armand Florez,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 01-1986 LKK PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

California Department

of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel seeking

redress for an alleged violation of his civil rights. In his

October 25, 2001, complaint plaintiff alleges defendant Clendenin

retaliated and used excessive force against plaintiff. January

21, 2005, plaintiff filed a document styled, “Motion for Summary

Judgment,” asserting he should be permitted to change the

pleading to allege that in 2003 and 2004, fifteen identified

defendants and 50 Doe defendants violated his right of access to

the courts and discriminated against him in violation of the

Case 2:01-cv-01986-LKK -PAN Document 113 Filed 04/20/05 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

2

Fourteenth Amendment.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d),

Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable

notice and upon such terms as are just, permit the

party to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth

transactions or occurrences or events which have

happened since the date of the pleading sought to be

supplemented. 

Rule 15(d) is meant to promote as complete an adjudication of the

parties’ dispute as possible. Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473

(9th Cir. 1998). While a party may make new claims in a

supplemental complaint, Keith, 858 F.2d at 473, the party cannot

introduce a separate and new cause of action. Planned

Partenthood of Southern Arizona, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir.

1997) (party cannot supplement complaint in action finally

resolved where court no longer has jurisdiction). There must be

some relationship between the newly alleged matters and the

subject of the original action, but they need not arise out of

the same transaction or occurrence. Keith, 858 F. 2d at 474. 

Plaintiff makes no showing his new allegations are related

to his original claims against defendant Clendenin. Plaintiff

seeks to introduce new and separate causes of action.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s January 21, 2005, motion should be

denied.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

Case 2:01-cv-01986-LKK -PAN Document 113 Filed 04/20/05 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

3

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: April 19, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:01-cv-01986-LKK -PAN Document 113 Filed 04/20/05 Page 3 of 3