Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02260/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02260-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM B. ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 

S. HALBRITTER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-CV-2260-DMC-P

ORDER

 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for leave to supplement his 

pleadings. See ECF Nos. 9 and 10. 

 Plaintiff initiated this action with a pro se complaint filed on October 5, 2023. See

ECF No. 1. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint as of right on October 13, 2023. See ECF 

No. 5. In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff claims that the named defendants, who are 

alleged to be current or former prison officials at Mule Creek State Prison, engaged in various 

acts of retaliation in violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. See id. 

 Prior to issuance of a screening order addressing the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s 

allegations, Plaintiff filed the current motions for leave to supplement his pleadings. See ECF 

Nos. 9 and 10. In these motions, Plaintiff seeks leave to supplement to allege additional instances 

of retaliation which have occurred after this action was initiated and as a result of this action 

Case 2:23-cv-02260-DMC Document 12 Filed 06/17/24 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 

27 

28 

2

being initiated. See id. Plaintiff also seeks to name an additional defendant alleged to be 

responsible for the additional acts of retaliation. See id. 

 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d): 

On motion and reasonable notice, 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. The court may permit supplementation even though the 

original pleading is defective in stating a claim or defense. The court may 

order that the opposing party plead to the supplemental pleading within a 

specified time.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d).

 The Court finds good cause to permit Plaintiff to supplement the operative first 

amended complaint to allege continued retaliation and to name an additional defendant. 

Consistent with Rule 15(d), the Court will address the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s claims separately. 

Because the Court cannot refer to multiple filings in order to make Plaintiff’s pleading complete, 

the Court will direct Plaintiff to file a single amended complaint which incorporates the 

allegations set forth in the first amended complaint as well as the allegations of continued

retaliation by a newly named defendant referenced in Plaintiff’s motions for leave to supplement. 

 Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that this action shall proceed on the operative first 

amended complaint currently on file if Plaintiff does not file a further amended pleading within 

the time permitted. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:23-cv-02260-DMC Document 12 Filed 06/17/24 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

27

28

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motions for leave to supplement, ECF Nos. 9 and 10, are 

GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date 

of this order, such amended complaint to incorporate the allegations of the first amended 

complaint and Plaintiff’s allegations, as set forth in the motions to supplement, of continued

retaliation as against one newly named prison official.

3. If Plaintiff does not file a second amended complaint within the time 

permitted therefor, this action shall proceed on the operative first amended complaint filed on 

October 13, 2023, without further leave to supplement.

Dated: June 17, 2024

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02260-DMC Document 12 Filed 06/17/24 Page 3 of 3