Opinion ID: 682201
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Supplemental Complaint

Text: 10 Patterson contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint. This contention lacks merit. 11 A denial of leave to amend is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Klamath-Lake Pharmaceutical Ass'n. V. Klamath Medical Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1292 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 822 (1983). Unless we have a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment, we will not disturb the district court's decision. McGlinchy v. Shell Chemical Co., 845 F.2d 802, 809 (9th Cir.1988). 12 Here, Patterson attempted to submit his supplemental complaint after he already had been given an opportunity to file an amended complaint and after the defendants had filed their motion to dismiss. The supplemental complaint contained a new cause of action which had not been addressed in the defendants' dismissal motion. Given these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Patterson an opportunity to file a supplemental complaint. See Klamath-Lake Pharmaceutical Ass'n. Bureau, 701 F.2d at 1292. 13 AFFIRMED.