United States District Court, D. Oregon, Pendleton Division
OPINION AND ORDER
Yim You United States Magistrate Judge.
se plaintiff Clarence Eugene Jones, who is currently
incarcerated at Snake River Corrections Institution (SRCI),
has filed a Complaint against: M. Rojas, law librarian; Lt.
Paynter, officer-in-charge of Complex Two during the A.M.
shift; Lt. Houston, officer-in-charge of Complex Two during
the P.M. shift; John Doe, designee of the functional unit
manager/superintendent who reviewed the pre-hearing detention
of plaintiff's placement in disciplinary segregation; M.
Fuentas, corridor officer in Complex Two; and Sgt. Whitley,
Fuentes' supervisor. ECF #1. Plaintiff asserts violations
of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and seeks
monetary damages, including punitive damages, and injunctive
relief. Id. at 14-15.
has filed a Motion to Amend Complaint. ECF #19. In his reply
brief to the motion, plaintiff makes certain concessions and
clarifies that he is seeking to amend his complaint to
include only those allegations asserted on “page eight
lines 8 through twenty-six (26) to page twenty-four (24),
lines 1 through 6.” Reply 7, ECF #33. To the extent
that plaintiff seeks to amend his Complaint to include
“page eight lines 8 through twenty-six (26) to page
twenty-four (24), lines 1 through 6, ” the motion to
amend is granted. Based on plaintiff's concessions, the
motion is otherwise denied as moot.
Rule 15(a)(2) Versus Rule 15(d)
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) governs the filing of
amended complaints and provides that, after a responsive
pleading has been filed, “a party may amend its
pleading only with the opposing party's written consent
or the court's leave.” Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2),
“[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.” Rule 15(d) pertains to supplemental
pleadings and provides:
On motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just
terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading
setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that
happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.
The court may permit supplementation even though the original
pleading is defective in stating a claim or defense. The
court may order that the opposing party plead to the
supplemental pleading within a specified time.
supplemental complaint differs from an amended complaint as
it “contains allegations concerning events that
occurred subsequent to the filing of the original
pleading” rather than “allegations concerning
events that occurred prior to the filing of the
original pleading[.]” Oregon Natural Desert
Association v. U.S. Forest Service, No.
3:03-CV-00213-PK, 2016 WL 11477037, at *2 (D. Or. March 9,
2016) (emphasis added). Rule 15(d) is intended “to give
district courts broad discretion in allowing supplemental
pleadings.” Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473
(9th Cir. 1988).
outset, defendants argue that plaintiff's motion to amend
should be construed as a motion to supplement the pleadings
pursuant to FRCP 15(d). Resp. 2, ECF #31. In his reply,
plaintiff agrees that to the extent he seeks to supplement
his complaint to include actions that occurred after the
filing of his complaint, FRCP 15(d) applies. Reply 2, ECF
also acknowledges that joinder of defendants and factual
claims proposed in his motion “from page 24 lines 7-26
to page 53 line 21” would be error, and that he will be
filing “several separate actions.” Id.
at 7. However, plaintiff asks the court to allow him to
proceed on those claims asserted from “page eight lines
8 through twenty-six (26) to page twenty-four (24), lines 1
through 6.” Id. at 7.
Rule 12(a)(2) applies to plaintiff's remaining
the amendments on “page eight lines 8 through
twenty-six (26) to page twenty-four (24), lines 1 through
6” pertain to events that predate the filing of the
complaint, Rule 15(a)(2) applies in assessing plaintiff's
motion to amend. And, for the reasons discussed below, those
amendments are allowed.
Allegations in Complaint
claims in plaintiff's Complaint, filed on May 10, 2018,
stem from his placement in disciplinary segregation on August
14, 2017, after he sent kytes to prison staff regarding their
failure to issue misconduct reports to inmates who did not
appear for their reserved times in the law library
“without good[, ] legitimate reasons.” Compl. 3.
Plaintiff complained that failing to hold inmates accountable
“worked to the advantage of the State of Oregon by
having a constitutionally mandated slot/seat at the law
library vacant with no consequences.” Id. at
4. Plaintiff “additionally opined that prison officials
were the most two faced people on the planet Earth dealing in
human trafficking, ” id. at 4, and said,
“Oh please keep my business away from your workers[, ]
it can turn out bade [sic] for you! and get them fired! heads
up! but of course you can do what you choose!”
Id., Ex. A. Plaintiff was charged with Disrespect I,
Rule 2.10, and Lt. Paynter ordered plaintiff placed in
holding status for disciplinary segregation because:
“Experience has shown that disrespect towards staff
directly challenges the authority of the staff member,