Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hayes v. State, Department of Corrections

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

September 12, 2017

DONALD C. HAYES, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., Defendants.

          ORDER

          DAVID W. CHRISTEL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         The 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.[1] 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.

         I. Motion to Strike (Dkt. 152)

         Defendants 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).[2] If Plaintiff wishes to file a separate lawsuit alleging constitutional violations against Nurse Polly and Nurse Henzel, he may do so.

         II. Motion for Extension (Dkt. 156)

         On July 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.

         Pursuant 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.

         Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Extension (Dkt. 156) is granted as follows:

• All discovery shall be completed by October 27, 2017.
• Any dispositive motion shall be filed and served on or before November 27, 2017.[3]

         III. Motion to Supplement (Dkt. 170)

         On 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.

         Rule 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).

         Leave 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.