Opinion
1:18-cv-00515-NONE-HBK (PC)
08-24-2021
LARRY WILLIAMS CORTINAS, Plaintiff, v. RAVIJOT GILL, JR., et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD (DOC. NO. 36)
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Larry Williams Cortinas, a state prisoner, initiated this action on April 10, 2018 by filing a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff is proceeding on his first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 17). Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to file a supplemental complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d). (Doc. No. 36). It is within the court's discretion as to whether to permit the filing of a supplemental complaint. Howard v. City of Coos Bay, 871 F.3d 1032, 1040 (9th Cir. 2017) (“only at the district court's discretion are parties permitted to file a supplemental complaint”).
In his one-page motion, Plaintiff states that “parties acting” behalf of Defendants are retaliating against him due to his filing of the instant complaint. (Id.). The Court finds the motion procedurally deficient. Under Local Rule 137(c), where a party moves to file a document which requires leave of Court, such as a supplemental pleading, the party “shall attach the document proposed to be filed as an exhibit to moving papers seeking such leave and lodge a proposed order.” The undersigned is unable to exercise any discretion whether to permit the supplemental pleading from Plaintiffs sparse motion.
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:
Plaintiffs motion to file a supplemental pleading (Doc. No. 22) be DENIED without prejudice.
NOTICE TO PARTIES
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).