Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02320/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02320-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Davis
Defendant
Joseph A. Sherman
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

JOSEPH A. SHERMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF DAVIS,

Defendant.

CIV S-04-2320 LKK PAN PS

ORDER 

—NFN—

On June 7, 2004, this court directed plaintiff to file

proof of timely service of process upon defendant or evidence

that plaintiff provided the required information to the U.S.

Marshal. Plaintiff timely filed a copy of the Marshal’s proof of

service and a copy of defendant’s completed Waiver of Service of

Summons. On July 15, defendant filed its answer to the

complaint.

On July 22, plaintiff filed an “Addendum to Complaint” in

which he alleges further violations of his rights “in addition to

Case 2:04-cv-02320-LKK -EFB Document 16 Filed 08/17/05 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

those already contained in the complaint.” 

The court construes plaintiff’s “Addendum” as a motion

for leave to serve and file a supplemental complaint. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(d) provides:

Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice

and upon such terms as are just, permit the party to serve a

supplemental pleading setting forth transactions or

occurrences or events which have happened since the date of

the pleading sought to be supplemented. 

Rule 15(d) is meant to promote as complete an adjudication of the

parties’ dispute as possible. Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473

(9th Cir. 1998). While a party may make new claims in a

supplemental complaint, Keith, 858 F.2d at 473, the party cannot

introduce a separate and new cause of action, Planned Partenthood

of Southern Arizona, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997) (“new and

distinct action” should be “subject of a separate suit”). There

must be some relationship between the newly alleged matters and

the subject of the original action, but they need not arise out

of the same transaction or occurrence. Keith, 858 F. 2d at 474. 

Plaintiff’s addendum sets forth additional specific

incidents of alleged misconduct by Davis police officers on

November 14, 2004, and in January, June and July 2005, all

subsequent to the November 2, 2004, filing of plaintiff’s initial

complaint. The alleged incidents are similar to those set forth

in the original complaint and support plaintiff’s claims

defendant has harassed plaintiff and arrested him without

probable cause. The addendum does not set forth new and separate

causes of action.

Case 2:04-cv-02320-LKK -EFB Document 16 Filed 08/17/05 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

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is granted. Plaintiff

shall, within 10 days of service of this order, serve and file

one comprehensive complaint in compliance with E. D. Cal. L. R.

15-220. Defendant shall file its answer within 10 days after

service of the supplemental complaint. 

So ordered. 

Dated: August 17, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02320-LKK -EFB Document 16 Filed 08/17/05 Page 3 of 3