Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00617/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00617-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
D. Castillo
Defendant
Edward D. Gilmore
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

Edward Gilmore seeks to hold Correctional Officer Castillo liable for violations of his civil 

while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison. The magistrate judge determined 

Plaintiff stated cognizable claims against Castillo for excessive force and retaliation, but his remaining 

causes of action were not cognizable. (Doc. 12 at 6-15.) Therefore, Plaintiff was directed to either 

notify the Court “he chooses to proceed with his initial Complaint on the cognizable claims” or file an 

amended complaint no later than June 15, 2023. (Id. at 16.) 

Plaintiff requested several extensions of time, which were granted by the Court. (Docs. 13-18.) 

After Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the final deadline ordered, the magistrate judge 

found Plaintiff failed to obey the Court’s Screening Order and failed to prosecute this action. 

Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the action be dismissed. (Doc. 20 at 4.) The Court 

EDWARD D. GILMORE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. CASTILLO,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:21-cv-0617 JLT GSA (PC)

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO 

SUPPLEMENT THE COMPLAINT, AND 

GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY THE 

COURT OF HIS WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED 

ON THE CLAIMS FOUND COGNIZABLE

Case 1:21-cv-00617-JLT-GSA Document 22 Filed 02/08/24 Page 1 of 4
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

served the Findings and Recommendations on the plaintiff and notified him that any objections were 

due within 14 days.1 (Id.) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed.

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court declines to adopt the Findings and Recommendations. 

A review of the record shows Plaintiff has not abandoned the action or failed to prosecute the case. 

He repeatedly requested extensions of time to comply with the Screening Order, and the Court found 

each extension was supported by good cause. (See Docs. 14, 16 and 18.)

Moreover, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Supplemental Complaint” the same date as the 

Findings and Recommendations were issued, though entered by the Clerk of Court two days later.

(Doc. 21.) Plaintiff requests leave to file a supplemental complaint pursuant to Rule 15(d) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including additional allegations concerning events on March 22, 

2021, and May 25, 2021. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff indicates he “hope[s] to keep his original complaint and 

just add these incidents through [a] supplemental complaint.” (Id. at 3.) This may be construed in part

as a request to proceed on his cognizable claims, which was an option the Court made available to 

Plaintiff. Given his status as a pro se litigant, and liberally construing the pleading, it appears Plaintiff 

attempted to comply with the order of the Court through this filing.

Rule 15(d) permits a Court to allow 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) (emphasis added). Courts have broad discretion to allow 

supplemental pleadings, as the rule is a “tool of judicial economy and convenience.” Keith v. Volpe, 

858 F.2d 467, 473 (9th Cir. 1998). Importantly, the Court did not yet direct service of the complaint, 

because it was unclear whether Plaintiff wished to proceed on the two claims found cognizable or file 

an amended complaint attempting to cure the pleading deficiencies. Toward that end, any motion 

under Rule 15(d) appears premature, as service would not be authorized.

1 The Magistrate Judge indicated: “Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations –

here, January 16, 2024 – Plaintiff may file written objections....” (Doc. 20 at 4, emphasis omitted.) The Court notes that 

while Plaintiff was served with the Findings and Recommendations on January 2, 2024 – the same date as the Findings and 

Recommendations were issued – service was by mail, and consequently he identified objection period granted Plaintiff 

approximately 10 days to respond, assuming he received the document within 3-4 days. The Court acknowledges this 

timeline was brief and may have imposed an improbable deadline for Plaintiff. 

Case 1:21-cv-00617-JLT-GSA Document 22 Filed 02/08/24 Page 2 of 4
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

27

28

Because Plaintiff may choose to file an amended complaint that incorporates information 

concerning additional events, Plaintiff is granted a final extension of time either file an amended 

complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only upon his claims for excessive force 

and retaliation.2 Plaintiff is reminded that, should he choose to amend, any amended complaint must 

contain all information he wishes the Court to consider without reference to any prior document. See 

Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967); see also Local Rule 220 (an amended complaint must 

be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading”). A document that simply 

includes additional information—such as his “supplemental complaint”—is insufficient. An amended 

complaint should also be captioned the “First Amended Complaint” and include the case number 1:21-

cv-00617-JLT-GSA.

In the alternative, Plaintiff may notify the Court of his willingness to proceed on the excessive 

force and retaliation claims against Castillo. To clearly convey this intent, Plaintiff should not include 

any additional allegations or claims in his notice. If Plaintiff files a “Notice of Willingness to Proceed 

on Cognizable Claims,” the action will proceed only on his claims for excessive force and retaliation, 

and the remaining causes of action will be dismissed. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated January 2, 2024 (Doc. 20) are declined.

2. Plaintiff’s request to supplement the complaint under Rule 15(d) (Doc. 21) is denied.

3. Plaintiff is granted an extension of time to file an amended complaint or notify the Court 

of his willingness to proceed only on his claims for excessive force and retaliation. 

Plaintiff SHALL file either the amended complaint or written notice no later than 

March 31, 2024.

4. Plaintiff is informed no further extensions will be given without a showing of 

exceptionally good cause.

///

2 As it is unclear whether Plaintiff’s property and documents were returned to him after he returned to Kern Valley State 

Prison (see Doc. 17 at 1), the Court will direct service of the initial complaint and the Screening Order to assist Plaintiff in 

evaluating his options.

Case 1:21-cv-00617-JLT-GSA Document 22 Filed 02/08/24 Page 3 of 4
4

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

5. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the action will be dismissed without 

prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

6. The Clerk of Court is directed to provide a copy of the initial complaint (Doc. 1) and 

the Court’s Screening Order (Doc. 12) while serving this Order upon Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2024 

Case 1:21-cv-00617-JLT-GSA Document 22 Filed 02/08/24 Page 4 of 4