Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00026/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00026-2/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

JESUS B. CASTANEDA,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. FOSTON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:12-cv–00026-BAM PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL

COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 13)

Plaintiff Jesus B. Castaneda is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was file on January 5, 2012. On

February 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint to allege

incidents for which his administrative remedies have been exhausted since he filed his complaint.

“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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). The purpose of the supplemental

complaint is to add claims that accrued after suit was filed. In this instance, Plaintiff is attempting

to amend, not supplement his complaint, and Plaintiff’s motion shall be construed as a motion to

amend his complaint..

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s

pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise,

a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave

shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In this case, a responsive

1

Case 1:12-cv-00026-AWI-BAM Document 14 Filed 04/04/12 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

pleading has not been served and Plaintiff has not previously amended his complaint. Therefore,

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint without leave of the Court.

Plaintiff is advised that his amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must

state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other

federal rights, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948-49 (2009). “The inquiry into causation must

be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose

acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d

628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient]

to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

554, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). An amended complaint supercedes the original complaint,

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567

(9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded

pleading,” Local Rule 220.

Finally, Plaintiff may not pursue multiple, unrelated claims in this action. Pursuant to the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, [a] partyasserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party

claim may join, as independent or alternate claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing

party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). “Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A

against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. George v.

Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff will not be permitted to proceed with a

“mishmash of a complaint,” George, 507 F.3d at 607, and if the complaint fails to comply with Rule

18(a), the Court will choose which claims will proceed and will dismiss out all unrelated claims.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend be

DENIED as unnecessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 4, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

cm411 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:12-cv-00026-AWI-BAM Document 14 Filed 04/04/12 Page 2 of 2