Earnest Lee Hamilton v. Miller, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 EARNEST LEE HAMILTON, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C25-5511-JLR-SKV 10 v. ORDER RE: MOTION REQUESTING LEAVE TO AMEND 11 MILLER, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 INTRODUCTION 15 Plaintiff Earnest Lee Hamilton proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP) in this 42 16 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Washington State Penitentiary, 17 brings claims associated with his allegation that he was raped during his confinement as a 18 pretrial detainee at Pierce County Jail. See Dkt. 11. Plaintiff filed a Motion Requesting Leave to 19 Amend. Dkt. 16. Defendants Sgt. Robb Miller, Gayle Pero, Deputy Stan Starks, Lt. Bryan 20 Aaron, Deputy Christopher Hall, and Cameron Carillo, RN, oppose this motion. Dkts. 19 & 21. 21 The Court, having now considered the motion, opposition, and the remainder of the record, 22 herein DENIES the Motion Requesting Leave to Amend, Dkt. 16, and STRIKES two 23 “Additional Pleadings”, Dkts. 13-14, on the docket. 1 BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing an IFP application and proposed complaint with 3 this Court on June 11, 2025. Dkt. 1. The Court issued an Order Declining to Serve and Granting 4 Leave to Amend, Dkt. 6, and twice granted Plaintiff extensions of time to submit an amended

5 pleading, Dkts. 8 & 10. Plaintiff timely submitted his Amended Complaint on October 21, 2025, 6 Dkt. 11, and, on October 27, 2025, the Court directed service of the pleading on the named 7 Defendants, Dkt. 12. The Amended Complaint names the Defendants identified above, as well 8 as seven “John Doe” or other unnamed Defendants, and includes twenty separate claims, 9 numbered “Claim 2” to “Claim 21.” Dkt. 11. 10 On November 4, 2025, the Court received two separate documents from Plaintiff, both 11 entitled “Additional Pleadings.” Dkts. 13-14. The first document identifies nine additional 12 entities or individuals as defendants and includes fourteen additional claims, “Claim 22” to 13 “Claim 35”, and the second document identifies one additional entity as a defendant and includes 14 three additional claims, “Claim 36” to “Claim 38.” Id.

15 On November 17, 2025, the Court received Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Leave to 16 Amend. Dkt. 16. The motion is not accompanied by any proposed amended pleading, states that 17 Plaintiff made a mistake in pleading, and “would only need a few days time to make the 18 correction.” Dkt. 16. Plaintiff also, on December 17, 2025, submitted a “Motion Requesting 19 Dismissal of Defendant[s’] Claim for Relief (12-10-25)”, wherein he asks that the Court “dismiss 20 Defendant[s’] claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state 21 a claim for which relief can be granted[,]” and grant his motion to amend. Dkt. 22.1 Plaintiff 22

23 1 Although this document requests dismissal of “Defendant[s’] claim for relief”, Dkt. 22, no Defendant in this matter has asserted any claim for relief. Defendants did, however, move to dismiss 1 states: “Based on recent disclosures, Amendment is needed to match facts to the pleadings to 2 reduce unnecessary time and expenses. Also to correct mistakes made regarding the process of 3 court procedure.” Id. 4 DISCUSSION

5 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a party may amend its pleading only 6 with the opposing party’s written consent or with leave of court. Under this rule, the “court 7 should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 8 However, a party seeking leave of Court to amend a pleading must attach a copy of the proposed 9 amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion or stipulation to amend, and “must indicate on the 10 proposed amended pleading how it differs from the pleading that it amends by bracketing or 11 striking through the text to be deleted and underlining or highlighting the text to be added.” 12 Local Civil Rule (LCR) 15(a). 13 Also, the proposed amended pleading “must not incorporate by reference any part of the 14 preceding pleading, including exhibits.” LCR 15(a). An amended pleading operates as a

15 complete substitute for, rather than a mere supplement to, the original complaint. See Ferdik v. 16 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & 17 Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990)). Accordingly, claims included in an original pleading, 18 but voluntarily omitted from an amended pleading are waived. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 19 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012). 20 Defendants here ask that the Court deny without prejudice the motion to amend given 21 Plaintiff’s failure to submit the proposed amended pleading. Defendants also ask that the Court 22

23 Plaintiff’s claims, in two motions filed on December 23, 2025, and December 26, 2026, respectively. Dkts. 23 & 26. 1 strike the “Additional Pleadings”, Dkts. 13-14, in which it appears Plaintiff seeks to supplement 2 his Amended Complaint. 3 A motion to amend not accompanied by a proposed amended complaint is procedurally 4 deficient and will not be considered. See LCR 15(a). Nor may a plaintiff properly supplement a

5 pleading by filing separate documents intended to be read together as a single document. 6 Although the Ninth Circuit adopts a flexible and liberal pleading policy for pro se litigants, the 7 complaint must still give fair notice and state the elements of the claims succinctly and plainly. 8 See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The filing of supplements 9 to a complaint fails to meet these standards and presents a risk of piecemeal litigation precluding 10 the orderly resolution of cognizable claims. Moreover, and as noted above, any amended 11 pleading operates as a complete substitute for any prior complaint. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. 12 In this case, Plaintiff improperly filed the “Additional Pleadings”, Dkts. 13-14, as 13 apparent supplements to the Amended Complaint. These documents are therefore properly 14 stricken from the docket. Plaintiff also filed a procedurally deficient motion to amend by failing

15 to attach a proposed amended pleading to his motion. See LCR 15(a). The Court, as such, does 16 not herein consider Plaintiff’s procedurally deficient request to amend. 17 CONCLUSION 18 For the reasons set forth above, the Court STRIKES the “Additional Pleadings”, Dkts. 19 13 -14, as improperly filed, and DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s procedurally deficient 20 Motion Requesting Leave to Amend, Dkt. 16. Plaintiff is advised that, if he wishes to pursue 21 amendment of his complaint, he must submit a new motion to amend together with a proposed 22 second amended complaint, and that any second amended complaint will act as a complete 23 / / / 1 substitute for the Amended Complaint. 2 Dated this 7th day of January, 2026. 3 A 4 S. KATE VAUGHAN United States Magistrate Judge 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23