From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bradford v. De Franco

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Feb 16, 2024
2:21-CV-2169-DJC-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2024)

Opinion

2:21-CV-2169-DJC-DMC-P

02-16-2024

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, Plaintiff, v. JEREMY DE FRANCO, Defendant.


ORDER

DENNIS M. COTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's supplemental complaint (erroneously docketed as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief). See ECF No. 22.

In his filing, which is captioned “Supplemental Complaint,” Plaintiff alleges conduct by various non-party prison officials occurring From May 2018 and February 2023 “through to date.” Id. at 3. It appears that Plaintiff seeks to supplement the original complaint to add these new parties and allegations.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d), the Court may permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrent, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d). Supplemental complaints may only be allowed, however, on motion and reasonable notice. See id. Here, Plaintiff filed his supplemental complaint without having filed a motion to do so or providing Defendant any notice of the request. Therefore, the supplemental complaint has not been properly filed and will be stricken. Cf Hardin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 813 F.Supp.2d 1167, 1181 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (striking fourth amended complaint: “If an amended pleading cannot be made as of right and is filed without leave of court or consent of the opposing party, the amended pleading is a nullity and without legal effect.”); Sexton v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., 2022 WL 976914 (E.D. Cal. March 31, 2022) (striking amended complaint); Guthrie v. Hurwitz, 2018 WL 4005261, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2018) (striking amended complaint).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff's filing at ECF No. 22 is construed as a supplemental complaint filed absent notice and motion and, so construed, is STRICKEN.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 22 as a pending motion.


Summaries of

Bradford v. De Franco

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Feb 16, 2024
2:21-CV-2169-DJC-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2024)
Case details for

Bradford v. De Franco

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, Plaintiff, v. JEREMY DE FRANCO, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Feb 16, 2024

Citations

2:21-CV-2169-DJC-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2024)