Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02320/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02320-1/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 

-o0oOn August 17, 2005, in response to plaintiff filing of an

“Addendum to Complaint” which this court construed as a motion

for leave to file a supplemental complaint, the court directed

plaintiff to serve and file one comprehensive complaint in

compliance with E. D. Cal. L. R. 15-220.

On August 30, plaintiff filed a “Motion for ‘Addendum’ to

be Construed [as a separate] Supplemental Complaint” pursuant

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d), due to plaintiff’s logistical limitations

during his present incarceration. Plaintiff states, for example, 

Case 2:04-cv-02320-LKK -EFB Document 19 Filed 11/10/05 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

2

that he requested access to law library materials on August 17

which he has yet to obtain; that it took him three weeks to

obtain a pad of legal paper and envelopes; that he does not have

a copy of his original complaint; and that he anticipates a delay

of several weeks just to obtain legal paper.

On October 3, defendant filed a letter requesting

clarification. 

Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for this court’s

departure from the local requirement of Rule 15-220 that the

complaint and supplemental complaint be combined in one document.

Since the court has determined plaintiff’s supplemental complaint

meets the “subsequent events” requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(d), and plaintiff has served both his original and

supplemental complaints upon defendant, permitting this action to

now move forward promotes the goal of efficiency underlying Rule

15(d) (see Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473 (9th Cir. 1988).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is granted. Defendant

shall serve and file one answer to both complaints within twenty

days after service of this order.

So ordered.

Dated: November 9, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02320-LKK -EFB Document 19 Filed 11/10/05 Page 2 of 2