Paulson v. George

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 13, 2021
• Docket: 3:19-cv-05491
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 RONALD LEE PAULSON, CASE NO. 3:19-cv-05491-BHS-JRC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 v. SUPPLEMENT 13 IONE GEORGE, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on referral from the District Court and on plaintiff’s 17 motion to supplement the complaint. Dkt. 93. Plaintiff’s motion to supplement is properly 18 interpreted as a motion to amend his complaint. Because plaintiff failed to comply with the 19 procedures required to seek amendment of his complaint, his motion is denied. 20 DISCUSSION 21 The District Court previously dismissed all claims against defendants other than the claim 22 against defendant Ione George for deliberate indifference. See Dkt. 76, at 6–7. In the operative 23 complaint (Dkt. 47), plaintiff alleges that defendant George violated the Eighth Amendment by 24 1 ordering his post-arrest transport in inhumane conditions in a van for more than 3,000 miles, 2 resulting in plaintiff suffering a heat stroke and other medical issues. 3 It appears that plaintiff now requests to “supplement” his complaint by adding allegations 4 regarding pre-trial events pertaining to alleged discovery withheld by the prosecution, an attack

5 on plaintiff by his cellmate in 2016, the prosecutor’s alleged conflict of interest, and facts related 6 to the driver of the transport van. See Dkt. 93, at 3–4. 7 “On motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a 8 supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the 9 date of the pleading to be supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) (emphasis added). But it does 10 not appear that plaintiff seeks to supplement his complaint pursuant to Rule 15(d) by adding 11 events that occurred after the date of the pleading. See Dkt. 93. The evidentiary attachments to 12 plaintiff’s motion do not include any events allegedly occurring after plaintiff initiated this 13 matter—let alone after plaintiff filed his most recent complaint. See Dkt. 93; see also Dkt. 96. 14 Therefore, the Court construes plaintiff’s motion to “supplement” as a motion to amend. At this

15 stage of the proceedings, plaintiff must have the Court’s permission to amend his complaint. See 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 17 Even interpreting the motion as a motion to amend, however, plaintiff’s motion is not 18 proper under the Court’s Local Civil Rules (“LCRs”). LCR 15 requires the party seeking leave 19 to amend to “attach a copy of the proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion[.]” 20 And— 21 [plaintiff] must indicate on the proposed amended pleading how it differs from the pleading that it amends by bracketing or striking through the text to be deleted and 22 underlining or highlighting the text to be added. The proposed amended pleading must not incorporate by reference any part of the preceding pleading, including 23 exhibits.

24 1 LCR 15. Plaintiff has not complied with this requirement by providing the Court with a copy of 2 his proposed amended complaint. This requirement is important so that the Court can ascertain 3 the causes of action and amendments that are proposed, in order to determine whether the 4 amendments would be futile. See Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th

5 Cir.2008). 6 Therefore, the motion to supplement is denied. See Dkt. 93. 7 Dated this 13th day of April, 2021. A 8

9 J. Richard Creatura Chief United States Magistrate Judge 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24