Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01062/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01062-1/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

FRANCIS W. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS CORRECTIONAL

OFFICER PETERSON, 

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-01062 AWI LJO P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT, AND

DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO RETURN

PROPOSED SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFF 

(Doc. 5)

Plaintiff Francis W. Davis (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on August

14, 2006. On August 24, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to supplement his complaint

and submitted a proposed supplement.

Rule 15(d) provides that “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) (emphasis added). Plaintiff seeks to supplement his

complaint to add a claim against Correctional Officer Cummings. Plaintiff’s claim against

Cummings accrued on June 15, 2006. The complaint upon which this action proceeds was filed on

August 14, 2006. Because plaintiff is not seeking to add a claim which accrued after August 14,

2006, his reliance on Rule 15(d) is misplaced and his motion shall be denied.

Case 1:06-cv-01062-AWI-GSA Document 10 Filed 09/19/06 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

If plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint including the claim against Cummings, he

may do so without leave of court because he has not previously amended and a responsive pleading

has not been served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, plaintiff must file an amended complaint

which is complete within itself. Local Rule 15-220. The amended complaint will supercede the

original complaint and the original complaint will not be considered by the court. 

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to supplement is HEREBY DENIED

and the Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to return plaintiff’s proposed supplement to him.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01062-AWI-GSA Document 10 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 2