Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05105/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05105-8/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES G. STAMOS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAMERIZ, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5105 AWI LJO P 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

RETURN LODGED SUPPLEMENTAL

COMPLAINT TO PLAINTIFF 

 James G. Stamos, Jr. (“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

January 16, 2004.

On March 19, 2004, this Court screened Plaintiff’s original Complaint and issued an

Order dismissing the Complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 14.) Plaintiff filed an Amended

Complaint on April 6, 2004. On July 15, 2005, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to

amend and granted Plaintiff to August 22, 2005, to file a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff

filed a Second Amended Complaint on February 22, 2006. The Court dismissed the Second

Amended Complaint on March 3, 2006. 

On April 4, 2006, and April 7, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint. This

Case 1:04-cv-05105-LJO-GSA Document 53 Filed 06/16/06 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

Complaint is pending review by the Court. 

On June 12, 2006, Plaintiff submitted a pleading titled “Supplemental Complaint to

Docket #32.) This pleading was lodged, rather than filed by the Court. The Court has examined

the purported Supplemental Complaint and now Orders that it be returned to Plaintiff for the

following reasons. 

A plaintiff may amend his complaint once “as a matter of course,” and without leave of

Court, before a response has been filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); Bonn v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). Leave of Court is

required for all other amendments. Rule Civ. P. 15(a). While the Court should freely give leave

to amend if justice requires, the Court may deny leave to amend if the amendment would be

futile or subject to dismissal. Bonn, 59 F.3d at 845; Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th

Cir. 1991). 

Here, Plaintiff did not seek leave of court prior to submitting the Supplemental

Complaint. Moreover, Plaintiff may not “supplement” a Complaint in the manner in which he

has attempted. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an Amended Complaint be complete in itself

without reference to prior pleadings. Thus, a supplemental complaint is not permitted. 

The Court notes further that Plaintiff has attempted to include new Defendants and new

claims. Plaintiff states that the events he wishes to include occurred in 2005. However, as the

events accrued after Plaintiff initiated this case, they cannot now be included in the action. 

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) of 1995, “[n]o action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by

a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative

remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Section 1997e(a)

exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 534

U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Prisoners must complete the prison’s administrative process, regardless of

the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, as long as the

administrative process can provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated. Booth v. Churner,

532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). "All 'available' remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need

Case 1:04-cv-05105-LJO-GSA Document 53 Filed 06/16/06 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

not meet federal standards, nor must they be 'plain, speedy, and effective." ' Porter, 534 U.S. at

524 (citing Booth, 532 U.S. at 739 n. 5). Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney

v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir.2002) (emphasis added). Plaintiff may not exhaust

while the suit is pending. McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

Even had Plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies, Plaintiff’s newest

complaints arose in San Carlos, California. Venue for such claims, thus, is appropriate in the

Northern District of California and not the Eastern District, Fresno Division. 

In light of all of the above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to return Plaintiff’s lodged “Supplemental

Complaint” to Plaintiff, unfiled. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05105-LJO-GSA Document 53 Filed 06/16/06 Page 3 of 3