Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00691/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00691-3/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SATF PRISONS AD-SEG PROPERTY

OFFICERS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-00691-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT

(Doc. 13)

Plaintiff Christopher Lipsey, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 6, 2015. On 

October 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to amend. Given that Plaintiff seeks to 

add new claims and parties based on events that occurred after he filed suit, his motion is properly 

treated as one seeking to file a supplemental complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d).

Rule 15(d) provides that “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Plaintiff’s complaint pleads 

claims for loss of property, denial of equal protection, and denial of access to the courts arising 

from events at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in 2012 and at 

California State Prison-Corcoran in 2014. The new claims Plaintiff proposes to add are unrelated 

to the claims originally pled and they do not supplement the events giving rise to those original

Case 1:15-cv-00691-LJO-SKO Document 15 Filed 12/08/15 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

27

28

2

claims. Although Rule 15(d) does not require the moving party to satisfy a transactional test, there 

must still be a relationship between the claim in the original pleading and the claims sought to be 

added. Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 474 (9th Cir. 1988). Thus, “[w]hile leave to permit 

supplemental pleading is favored, it cannot be used to introduce a separate, distinct and new cause 

of action.” Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona v. Neely, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Accordingly, Rule 15(d) provides no basis for allowing Plaintiff to supplement his 

complaint to add new, unrelated claims and his motion is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00691-LJO-SKO Document 15 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 2