United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
DONALD C. HAYES, Plaintiff,
STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., Defendants.
W. CHRISTEL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
District Court has referred this action, filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, to United States Magistrate Judge David
W. Christel. Plaintiff Donald C. Hayes, proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil
rights action on February 8, 2016. Dkt. 1. Presently pending
before the Court are Defendants' Motion to Strike
Letter/Affidavit from Record (“Motion to
Strike”), and Plaintiff's Motion to Request
Extension of Time for Discovery (“Motion for
Extension”) and “Supplemental Complaint
(Proposed) (For Damages)” (“Motion to
Supplement”). Dkt. 152, 156, 170. After review of
the relevant record, the Motion to Strike (Dkt. 152) is
granted, the Motion for Extension (Dkt. 156) is granted, and
the Motion to Supplement (Dkt. 170) is denied.
Motion to Strike (Dkt. 152)
filed the Motion to Strike on July 19, 2017, requesting the
Court strike Plaintiff's letters (Dkt. 151) filed on June
27, 2017. Dkt. 152. Defendants move to strike the letters
because the letters contain information which is contradicted
by documentation in the facilities where he has been housed.
Id. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(f), “[t]he court may strike from a pleading an
insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Plaintiff's
letters contain complaints against individuals who are not
named as defendants in this lawsuit. See Dkt. 151.
In the letters, Plaintiff complains of actions taken by Nurse
Polly and Nurse Henzel. See id. In the Fourth
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims against
Defendants Department of Corrections (“DOC”),
Elizabeth Suiter, Amy Reyes, Sara Smith, and Tuan Duong.
See Dkt. 140. As the information in Plaintiff's
letters is immaterial to this action, the Court grants
Defendants' Motion to Strike (Dkt. 152). If Plaintiff
wishes to file a separate lawsuit alleging constitutional
violations against Nurse Polly and Nurse Henzel, he may do
Motion for Extension (Dkt. 156)
28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension, wherein he
requested a 45-90 day extension to finalize discovery. Dkt.
156. Plaintiff states he was transferred to Coyote Ridge
Correctional Center (“CRCC”) and did not have
access to his legal materials until July 12, 2017.
Id. It is unclear how long he was without access to
his legal materials. See id. Defendants filed a
Response stating they oppose an extension of time because
Plaintiff had access to CRCC's law library prior to July
23, 2017, which is inconsistent with his Motion for
Extension. Dkt. 162.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), the Court may extend
a deadline for good cause. Here, Plaintiff contends he did
not have access to his legal materials for a period of time
while he was being transferred from Washington State
Penitentiary to CRCC. See Dkt. 156. While Defendants
have produced evidence showing Plaintiff had access to
CRCC's law library prior to July 23, 2017, this does not
overcome Plaintiff's assertion that he did not have
access to his legal materials for a period of time after he
was transferred to CRCC. Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff
has shown good cause for a discovery extension.
Plaintiff's Motion for Extension (Dkt. 156) is granted as
• All discovery shall be completed by October 27, 2017.
• Any dispositive motion shall be filed and served on or
before November 27, 2017.
Motion to Supplement (Dkt. 170)
August 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Supplement,
wherein he requests permission to supplement his Fourth
Amended Complaint by adding a retaliation claim against
non-party Nurse Henzel. Dkt. 170. Defendants filed Responses
to the Motion to Supplement requesting the Motion be denied
because the supplemental pleading is unrelated to the claims
alleged in the Fourth Amended Complaint. Dkt. 177, 178.
15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “plainly
permits supplemental amendments to cover events happening
after suit, and it follows, of course, that persons
participating in these new events may be added if
necessary.” Griffin v. County School Board of
Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218, 226-17 (1964).
“While some relationship must exist between the newly
alleged matters and the subject of the original action, they
need not all arise out of the same transaction.”
Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 474 (9th Cir.1988).
Rule 15(d) permits the filing of a supplemental pleading that
introduces a cause of action not alleged in the complaint
based on facts not in existence when the original complaint
was filed. Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159
F.3d 374, 382 (9th Cir.1998).
to file a supplemental pleading will be denied, however,
where the supplemental pleading asserts new and distinct
claims unrelated to the original complaint and that should be
the subject of a separate lawsuit. See Planned Parenthood
of So. Arizona v. Neely,130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th
Cir.1997). A supplemental complaint would not promote
judicial efficiency in such ...