Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01593/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01593-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN ERIC CHATMON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1593 GEB EFB P

vs.

BERRY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 4, 2006, plaintiff filed an untitled document

alleging retaliatory actions by three defendants in this action and requesting forms for service on

defendants. The court is unable to determine whether plaintiff is seeking to file an amended

complaint or to file some other type of motion. The court will, therefore, permit plaintiff an

opportunity to either file a motion to amend his complaint together with a proposed amended

complaint, or file whatever other specific motion that plaintiff is attempting to assert.

Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a supplemental

pleading “setting forth transactions or occurrences or events which have happened since the date

of the pleading sought to be supplemented” may be permitted upon motion of a party. As a

general rule, the grant or denial of leave to file a supplemental pleading is within the discretion

Case 2:05-cv-01593-GEB-EFB Document 32 Filed 12/05/06 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

2

of the court. Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1988). In determining whether leave should

be granted, the court will consider the following factors: 1) whether there is a reasonable

relationship between the original and supplemental pleading; 2) whether granting the request is

in the interest of judicial economy and will promote the speedy resolution of the entire

controversy between the parties; 3) whether there was undue delay by the moving party in

seeking leave; and 4) whether granting the motion will prejudice the opposing party. 6 Charles

Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1506 (2d ed. 1987). 

Plaintiff is admonished that any proposed amended complaint must stand on its own, and not

depend upon references back to the original complaint. Plaintiff must draft the complaint anew

and set forth all allegations and causes of action that he seeks to assert. If leave is granted to file

the amended complaint, that complaint will replace and supersede the prior complaint.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file a

motion to amend his complaint together with a proposed amended complaint, or whatever other

motion plaintiff is seeking to assert.

2. Plaintiff shall clearly indicate in the caption the nature of the motion and state

specifically the order being sought. 

Dated: December 4, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01593-GEB-EFB Document 32 Filed 12/05/06 Page 2 of 2