Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00227/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00227-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TREMANE DARNELL CARTHEN, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

P. SCOTT, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG (PC)

 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT HIS 

COMPLAINT BE DENIED

(ECF No. 63)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

FOURTEEN DAYS

Tremane Carthen (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action. On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to 

supplement his complaint to add an Eighth Amendment sexual assault/sexual 

harassment/excessive force claim, a Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure claim, 

and a First Amendment retaliation claim based on incidents that occurred at United States 

Penitentiary, Lee County, in Virginia. (ECF Nos. 63 & 64). For the reasons that follow, the 

Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s motion be denied without prejudice to Plaintiff asserting 

these claims in separate lawsuit(s).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on February 4, 2019. (ECF No. 1). This case is 

currently proceeding on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment sexual assault/harassment claims 

against defendants Scott, Perez, Bradley, and Lodge and on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment 

unreasonable search claims against defendants Scott, Perez, Bradley, and Lodge. (ECF No. 

Case 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG Document 65 Filed 06/29/22 Page 1 of 6
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

39). Plaintiff’s complaint is proceeding based on allegations that Defendants engaged in 

offensive and inappropriate search procedures. (ECF No. 38).

On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to supplement, along with a proposed 

complaint. (ECF Nos. 63 & 64). In the proposed supplemental complaint, Plaintiff attempts to 

add an Eighth Amendment sexual assault/sexual harassment/excessive force claim, a Fourth 

Amendment unreasonable search and seizure claim, and a First Amendment retaliation claim 

against prison officials who work at United States Penitentiary, Lee County, in Virginia. 

Plaintiff generally alleges that officers used force on him and trashed his cell (including 

throwing away legal documents and personal property) in retaliation for filing this lawsuit, 

among other things.1

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) provides for supplemental pleadings as follows:

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. 

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

The Ninth Circuit has provided the following guidance on ruling on motions to 

supplement a complaint:

Rule 15(d) is intended to give district courts broad discretion in allowing 

supplemental pleadings. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15, advisory committee’s note. The rule is 

a tool of judicial economy and convenience. Its use is therefore favored. As 

Judge Haynsworth observed more than two decades ago:

Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for ... 

supplemental pleading. It is a useful device, enabling a court to 

award complete relief, or more nearly complete relief, in one 

action, and to avoid the cost, delay and waste of separate actions 

which must be separately tried and prosecuted. So useful they are 

and of such service in the efficient administration of justice that 

they ought to be allowed as of course, unless some particular 

1 The Court notes that Plaintiff also appears to state that he will file additional supplement(s) based on 

destruction of his property and being given spoiled or rotten food. (ECF No. 63, pgs. 2-3).

Case 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG Document 65 Filed 06/29/22 Page 2 of 6
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

reason for disallowing them appears, though the court has the 

unquestioned right to impose terms upon their allowance when 

fairness appears to require them.

New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Waller, 323 F.2d 20, 28–29 (4th 

Cir.1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 963, 84 S.Ct. 1124, 11 L.Ed.2d 981 (1964).

. . .

... The absence of a transactional test, which is an integral part of other Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, see, e.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 13(a), 14(a), and 20, is a strong 

indication that this test is not required. Further, Rule 15(d) specifically permits 

supplemental pleadings “setting forth transactions or occurrences or events 

which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented.” 

This textually negates the argument that a transactional test is required. While 

some relationship must exist between the newly alleged matters and the subject 

of the original action, they need not all arise out of the same transaction. 

Professor Moore has explained the principle succinctly:

While the matters stated in a supplemental complaint should have 

some relation to the claim set forth in the original pleading, the 

fact that the supplemental pleading technically states a new cause 

of action should not be a bar to its allowance, but only a factor to 

be considered by the court in the exercise of its discretion, along 

with such factors as possible prejudice or laches.

3 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 15.16[3] (1985).

. . .

Lower courts have similarly stressed the trial court’s discretion in deciding 

whether to allow a supplemental pleading, and liberally construe Rule 

15(d) absent a showing of prejudice to the defendant.

Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473-75 (9th Cir. 1988). See also William Inglis & Sons Baking 

Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc. 668 F.2d 1014, 1057 (9th Cir. 1981) (“The purpose of 

Rule 15(d) is to promote as complete an adjudication of the dispute between the parties as 

possible by allowing the addition of claims which arise after the initial pleadings are filed.”).

III. ANALYSIS

As discussed above, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) is a tool of judicial economy 

and convenience, and the Court finds that these interests would not be served by allowing 

Plaintiff to supplement his complaint here. 

First, even though the Court informed Plaintiff that his proposed complaint needed to be 

Case 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG Document 65 Filed 06/29/22 Page 3 of 6
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

complete in itself (ECF No. 48, p. 2), Plaintiff’s proposed complaint does not include the 

factual allegations included in his original complaint. Instead, it only includes the new 

allegations. Thus, Plaintiff failed to comply with this Court’s Local Rules. Local Rule 220(c) 

(“Unless prior approval to the contrary is obtained from the Court, every pleading to which an 

amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by court order 

shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or 

superseded pleading. No pleading shall be deemed amended or supplemented until this Rule 

has been complied with.”).

Second, the proposed supplemental pleading concerns events and defendants that are

distinct from the claim that is proceeding. Plaintiff does attempt to connect the claims by 

alleging that he was retaliated against for filing this lawsuit, and there may be some connection

between Plaintiff’s new allegations and this action because the new defendants allegedly 

retaliated against Plaintiff for pursing this action. However, the proposed complaint still asserts 

claims based on completely different facts against completely different defendants. This case is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment sexual assault/harassment claims against 

defendants Scott, Perez, Bradley, and Lodge and on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment 

unreasonable search claims against defendants Scott, Perez, Bradley, and Lodge. Plaintiff’s 

complaint is proceeding based on allegations that Defendants engaged in offensive and 

inappropriate search procedures. The alleged incidents occurred in 2018 at United States 

Penitentiary, Atwater, in California. In the proposed complaint, Plaintiff attempts to add an 

Eighth Amendment sexual assault/sexual harassment/excessive force claim, a Fourth 

Amendment unreasonable search and seizure claim, and a First Amendment retaliation claim. 

The alleged incidents occurred in 2019 and 2020, at United States Penitentiary, Lee County, in 

Virginia. Plaintiff generally alleges that officers used force on him and trashed in cell 

(including throwing away legal documents and personal property) in retaliation for filing this 

lawsuit, among other things.

2

 Thus, the claims are based on completely different facts against

2 Plaintiff also includes one sentence stating that unnamed individuals at United States Penitentiary, 

Coleman, took all of his property. (ECF No. 64, p. 5). However, these individuals are not named as defendants in 

Case 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG Document 65 Filed 06/29/22 Page 4 of 6
5

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

completely different defendants, and allowing these claims to proceed in one suit would not 

serve judicial economy or convenience.

Finally, there would be some prejudice to defendants Scott, Perez, Bradley, and Lodge 

in adding the claims. The defendants in this case have been served, and have filed a motion to 

dismiss and a motion to stay. While the claims against these defendants may ultimately be 

dismissed, the claims against them are currently proceeding. However, if the Court were to 

allow Plaintiff to add new claims, the Court would first need to screen these claims. If the 

Court found that at least some of the claims should proceed past screening, the Court would 

need to serve the new defendants and give them time to appear, because they are not currently 

defendants in this action. The Court would then need to allow discovery on the new claims 

because they involve entirely different transactions than the claims that are currently 

proceeding. This would likely delay resolution of the claims that are currently proceeding.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that judicial economy and convenience would 

not be served by allowing Plaintiff to supplement his complaint. Accordingly, the Court will 

recommend that Plaintiff’s motion be denied, without prejudice to Plaintiff asserting the 

proposed claims in separate lawsuit(s).

3

IV. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for 

Plaintiff’s proposed supplement. Moreover, as with the other allegations in his proposed supplement, the incident 

occurred at a different institution.

3 The Court notes that Plaintiff alleges that he attempted to file these new claims in Virginia, but that he 

has not received a response from the District Court. However, Plaintiff did file two cases in the Western District 

of Virginia, Case No. 7:22-cv-00201 and Case No. 7:22-cv-00202. Both cases were dismissed without prejudice

on June 3, 2022. Case No. 7:22-cv-00201 was dismissed because Plaintiff failed to keep the Court advised of his 

current address. (Case No. 7:22-cv-00201, ECF No. 4). Additionally, Plaintiff was “advised that he may petition 

to reopen this case by filing a motion to reopen not later than thirty days after entry of this order. In that motion, 

he must provide specific reasons why he failed to keep the Clerk updated as to his address. Alternatively, he may 

file a new complaint in this court, subject to the applicable statute of limitations.” (Id. at 1). Case No. 7:22-cv00202 was dismissed because Plaintiff failed to submit the required financial information. (Case No. 7:22-cv00202, ECF Nos. 3 & 4).

Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that his legal mail and legal property have been confiscated. If prison 

officials are interfering with Plaintiff’s ability to prosecute this case, he may file a motion for an order under the 

All Writs Act. However, Plaintiff is no longer confined United States Penitentiary, Lee County. Moreover, it 

appears that, at this time, Plaintiff is able to prosecute this case. Most recently, Plaintiff filed a twenty-one-page 

opposition to the motion to dismiss that was filed in this case (ECF No. 62). If Plaintiff believes non-defendants 

have violated his civil rights by confiscating his legal mail and legal property, he may file a separate lawsuit 

against those individuals. 

Case 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG Document 65 Filed 06/29/22 Page 5 of 6
6

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

leave to supplement his complaint be DENIED.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may 

file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be 

served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2022 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG Document 65 Filed 06/29/22 Page 6 of 6