Opinion ID: 69922
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Denial of Appellant’s Motions

Text: 1. Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint Appellant claims that the district court erred by denying his motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint. In that motion, Appellant sought to add Nurse Beaty, physician’s assistant Randle, and correctional officers Brown and Salazar as defendants. The district court denied the motion because it found 11 No. 08-50484 that amending the complaint would prejudice Appellees by forcing them to litigate the case from the beginning. The district court may permit a party to file a supplemental pleading “setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” F ED. R. C IV. P. 15(d). We review the denial of leave to file a supplemental complaint for abuse of discretion. Burns v. Exxon Corp., 158 F.3d 336, 343 (5th Cir. 1998). We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to supplement his complaint. Although Appellant’s supplemental pleading included actions which occurred after he filed his original complaint, they involved claims against parties other than Appellees. The district court was within its discretion when it found that granting leave to supplement would delay the disposition of the claims against Appellees, thereby causing them prejudice. See id. (“Rule 15(d) is clear that the court may permit a supplemental pleading . . . .”) (emphasis in original). 2. Discovery Motions Appellant also argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to compel production of documents. Appellant complains specifically of Appellees’ failure to turn over a videotape from March 19, 2007, which Appellant claims would show his cell being shaken down by an infirmary wing officer, and that it would show guards forcing Appellant to drag himself and his property from the cell. Appellees made their initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 after Appellant brought the motion to compel, but responded that the videotape was irrelevant because the court had denied Appellant leave to supplement the complaint. The district court denied Appellant’s motion. 12 No. 08-50484 We review a district court’s denial of a motion to compel for abuse of discretion. Burns, 158 F.3d at 343. The videotape would allegedly show events that transpired on March 19, 2007, two months after Appellant filed his complaint. The denial of the motion to compel is tied to the denial of leave to supplement Appellant’s complaint; the videotape would be relevant only if the district court had granted leave to supplement. As discussed above, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to supplement the complaint. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to compel.