Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00276/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00276-8/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELLY B. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. PHUI, ET. AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-276-HBK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT 

AND MOTION TO STAY CASE TO FILE 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO 

RESPOND TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS

(Doc. Nos. 33, 38)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to file supplemental complaint and motion 

to stay case to allow Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint, filed on November 22, 2021 

and January 3, 2022, respectively. (Doc. Nos. 33, 38). Defendants have not filed responses in 

opposition to either motion. (See docket). Plaintiff then lodged a second amended complaint on 

February 11, 2022. (Doc. No. 44).

As background, Plaintiff initiated this action proceeding pro se by filing a prisoner civil 

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff now proceeds on his First 

Amended Complaint (FAC) alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition. (Doc. 

No. 10). This case has proceeded past screening and Defendants have answered. (See generally

Doc. Nos. 12, 17).

Case 1:20-cv-00276-KES-HBK Document 46 Filed 02/14/22 Page 1 of 4
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

Motion to Supplement Complaint

Plaintiff’s first motion is entitled “supplemental complaint.” (Doc. No. 33). Rather than 

a motion seeking leave to supplement the FAC, it appears Plaintiff intended his filing to be a 

supplemental complaint considering he generally advises the Court that he is continuing to have 

medical procedures. (Id. at 1-2). Rule 15(d) provides on motion and reasonable notice, the court 

may, on just terms permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth any transaction, 

occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(d). 

The supplement concerning Plaintiff’s recent medical appointments do not contain 

sufficient facts supporting his claims in this case, nor is it a complete supplemental complaint. 

Local Rule 220 requires any supplement or amendment to be complete and not refer to a prior or 

superseding pleading. Here, the supplemental complaint is two pages in length and does not 

stand alone. Thus, the Court directs the Clerk to strike the supplemental complaint. 

Motion to Stay and file Second Amended Complaint

Turning to Plaintiff’s motion to stay the action so he may file a Second Amended 

Complaint, Plaintiff in pertinent states he has no legal training, and he has done his best to file a 

complaint that states a claim. (Doc. No. 38 at 4-5). Plaintiff further states that he believes his 

FAC is deficient, pointing to Defendants Answer and defense counsels’ other arguments in 

opposition to various motions Plaintiff has submitted to the Court, including, for example, his 

motions for appointment of counsel, which the Court has denied. (Id. at 5-6). Regarding the 

initial complaint, Plaintiff contends that the Court noted “major pleading issue(s)/error(s)” and 

further submits that his FAC is also lacking. (Id. at 6). Stating that the action has not yet 

proceeded to discovery, Plaintiff requests that the Court stay the action because justice requires 

that he be permitted to file a second amended complaint. (Id. at 6-12).

Because defendants have already answered the FAC, Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure govern whether Plaintiff may amend. Under Rule 15(a)(2), “a party may amend 

its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave” and the “court 

should freely give leave when justice so requires.” However, a “district court does not err in 

Case 1:20-cv-00276-KES-HBK Document 46 Filed 02/14/22 Page 2 of 4
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

denying leave to amend where the amendment would be futile.” Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 

829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991). Further, leave to amend may be denied where “undue prejudice to the 

opposing party” would result. Moore v. Kayport Package Express, 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir.

1989). Leave to amend is generally inappropriate when the party does not submit a proposed 

amendment indicating what the amended complaint would have contained. National Union of 

Hosp. & Health Care Employees, RWDSU, AFL-CIO v. Carey, 557 F.2d 278, 282 (2d Cir. 1977); 

Case v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 294 F.2d 676, 678 (5th Cir. 1961); Pet Quarters, Inc. v. 

Depository Trust and Clearing Corp., 559 F.3d 772, 782 (8th Cir. 2009).

Turning to Plaintiff’s motion to stay in order to file a second amended complaint, no stay 

is warranted in this case. The need to file a second amended complaint is not grounds to stay a 

matter. Irvin v. Yates, 783 F. App’x 695, 696 (9th Cir. 2019)(not abuse of discretion to deny stay 

wen plaintiff provides no justification for a stay). Further, to the extent Plaintiff wishes to file a 

second amended complaint, Plaintiff did not accompany his motion with a copy of his proposed 

second amended complaint. Instead, just a few days ago, on February 11, 2022, Plaintiff lodged 

his second amended complaint. (Doc. No. 44). Considering Defendants have not yet filed a 

response to this motion and the filing of the proposed second amended complaint, the Court will 

direct Defendant to respond to the motion. 

In closing, the Court has denied many of Plaintiff’s motions recently, but Plaintiff should 

not understand this to mean he is not capable of proceeding pro se in this case. Plaintiff’s FAC 

successfully withstood screening, was served, defendants answered, and this case is currently at 

the discovery stage. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Plaintiff’s motion to supplement as a 

pending motion and is directed to strike the supplemental complaint (Doc. No. 33) 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to stay (Doc. No. 38) is denied.

3. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended 

complaint (Doc. No. 38) within fourteen (14) days from the date on this order.

///

Case 1:20-cv-00276-KES-HBK Document 46 Filed 02/14/22 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Dated: February 14, 2022 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00276-KES-HBK Document 46 Filed 02/14/22 Page 4 of 4