VAN BUREN v. WADDLE

No. 1:14-cv-01894-DAD-MJS.

IRVIN VAN BUREN, Plaintiff, v. C. WADDLE, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Irvin Van Buren, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

C. Waddle, Defendant, represented by Lucas L. Hennes , Office of the Attorney General.

J. Ronquillo, Defendant, represented by Lucas L. Hennes , Office of the Attorney General.

Walinga, Defendant, represented by Lucas L. Hennes , Office of the Attorney General.

Neibert, Defendant, represented by Lucas L. Hennes , Office of the Attorney General.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING MOTION FOR EXETSNION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS, AND DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE COMPLAINT

(Doc. Nos. 49, 78, 80)

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

Plaintiff Irvin Van Buren is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint ("SAC") on July 21, 2016. (Doc. No. 49.) The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations on February 1, 2017, construing the motion as requesting leave to file a supplemental complaint because plaintiff's proposed new allegations concerned incidents occurring after the filing of this civil rights action. The magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff's motion for leave to supplement his complaint be denied because the facts and claims proposed to be added involved new constitutional allegations against new defendants based on separate legal wrongs from those originally found by the court to be cognizable in this action. (Doc. No. 78.) The findings and recommendations were served on all parties, and contained notice that any objection must be filed within fourteen days of service. On March 3, 2017, plaintiff filed objections, along with a motion requesting equitable tolling of the fourteen-day objection deadline provided for in the findings and recommendations. (Doc. Nos. 80, 81.) In this regard, plaintiff asserts he was unable to access either the law library or his personal property and was therefore unable to respond to findings and recommendations in a timely manner. (Doc. No. 80.) The undersigned will grant plaintiff's motion construed as a one for an extension of time to file objections and will consider the objections he has filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendation are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff asserts he was "denied due process rights in the exact same manner" at subsequent Rule Violation Report ("RVR") hearings as he was during the RVR hearing contested in his original complaint. (Doc. No. 81 at 3.) Assuming that to be the case, the fact that an alleged constitutional violation was committed in the same way does not create the necessary relationship to warrant adding claims arising from different proceedings conducted on different issues by different defendants at a significantly later date to this lawsuit. Planned Parenthood of S. Ariz. V. Neely, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997) (supplemental pleadings "cannot be used to introduce a `separate, distinct and new cause of action'") (quoting Berssenbrugge v. Luce Mfg. Co., 30 F.Supp. 101, 102 (D. Mo. 1939)). As observed by the assigned magistrate judge, if plaintiff wishes to pursue his proposed new claims, they are properly brought in a separate complaint filed in a new civil action.

Based on the foregoing,

1. The findings and recommendations issued February 1, 2017 (Doc. No. 78) are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's motion for equitable tolling of the deadline to object to the findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 80), construed as a request for an extension of time to file objections, is granted; and

3. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Doc. No. 49) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases