Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01425/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01425-1/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Patrick Ronald Holley, 

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1425 GEB PAN P

vs. Order

California Department of

Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel prosecuting a

civil rights action.

The case proceeds on the July 20, 2004, complaint. 

Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference to serious medical

needs and retaliation for exercise of rights protected by the

First Amendment. The complaint requests the court “invoke”

pendent jurisdiction but includes no state law claims. 

August 24, 2004, plaintiff moved “to file supplemental

Case 2:04-cv-01425-GEB-EFB Document 42 Filed 06/01/05 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

2

pleading” to include claims of due process violations and

retaliation occurring after the initial pleading. He did not

submit a proposed supplemental complaint.

January 14, 2005, plaintiff moved for leave to file a

supplemental pleading to include claims regarding “transactions

and occurrences or events which have happened since the date of

the pleading sought to be supplemented, and claims that arose out

of the conduct, transactions, or occurrences set forth or

attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, governed by

state tort law.” He did not submit a proposed supplemental or

amended pleading.

January 28, 2005, defendants opposed plaintiff’s motion on

the ground plaintiff failed to submit a proposed pleading

including, complete unto itself, all claims and allegations

including those permitted by amendment or supplementation. See

Local Rule 15-220; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Plaintiff’s

motions are deficient because he failed to submit a proposed

supplemental or amended pleading.

May 10, 2005, plaintiff again moved to supplement his

pleading, failing to submit a proposed supplemental pleading.

March 29, 2005, plaintiff moved to “exclude prejudicial

records submitted by defendants,” seeking to “strike” copies of

documents defendants provided to him in discovery. No such

documents are of record in this proceeding. 

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s August 24, 2004, January 14,

2005, and May 10, 2005, requests to supplement his pleading are

Case 2:04-cv-01425-GEB-EFB Document 42 Filed 06/01/05 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

3

denied. Plaintiff’s March 29, 2005, motion to exclude

prejudicial records is denied.

So ordered. 

Dated: May 31, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01425-GEB-EFB Document 42 Filed 06/01/05 Page 3 of 3