The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINTS (Doc. 9.) ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO:
(1) RETURN LODGED SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINTS TO PLAINTIFF (Docs. 10, 11.) (2) SEND PLAINTIFF A COPY OF HIS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT (Doc. 1.)
(3) SEND PLAINTIFF A CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, IF HE SO WISHES
Keith Sekerke ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action. (Doc. 1.) On August 19, 2011, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, and no other parties have appeared. (Doc. 6.)
On February 12, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file two supplemental complaints (Doc. 9) and lodged two proposed supplemental complaints (Docs. 10, 11). Plaintiff's motion is now before the Court.
II. SUMMARY OF ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is a California state prisoner presently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California. The events at issue occurred at the R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJD") in San Diego, California, and the California Correctional Institution ("CCI") in Tehachapi, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated at those facilities. Plaintiff names as defendants Harold Tate (M.D. at CCI), S. Seisha (M.D. at CCI), John Doe I (Chief Medical Officer at CCI), John Doe II (Federal Receiver), Jodie River (Appeals Coordinator at RJD), J. Cook (Doctor at RJD), Newton (M.D. at RJD), Mary Ann Glynn (Health Care Chief Executive Officer at RJD), Liz Romero (Chief Medical Officer at RJD), and unnamed Jane Does (R.N.s at RJD and CCI).
Plaintiff alleges as follows. Since November 15, 2010, Plaintiff has requested surgery to remove a foreign body left inside him during brain surgery. He has been prescribed several pain medications since that date, but since his arrival at CCI, defendants Dr. Tate and Dr. Seisha have discontinued the medications and denied Plaintiff an MRI and surgery to remove the foreign body.
On November 15, 2010, Nurse Practitioner Pasha at RJD prescribed medications and ordered diagnostic tests and surgery to remove the foreign body. On January 1, 2011, Plaintiff was admitted to Alvarado Hospital Emergency with complaints of abdominal pain from the foreign body. From January 3, 2011 through May 25, 2011, Dr. M. Martinez ordered medications, a CT Scan, and surgery, to remove the foreign body and treat Plaintiff for severe pain. However, all defendants at RJD delayed Plaintiff's access to surgery and failed to carry out orders and recommendations to remove the foreign body. All defendants at CCI intentionally interfered with treatment once prescribed, failed to act on medical orders and recommendations for surgery and specialized care, and ignored Plaintiff's requests for treatment. Plaintiff has suffered chronic and substantial pain, seizures, migraine headaches, neck pain, and abdominal pain.
Plaintiff brings claims for inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and state tort claims for medical malpractice. Plaintiff requests monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.
III. AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINTS -- RULE 15
Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967), and once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case.
Under Rule 15(d), "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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). A party may only file a supplemental complaint with leave of court. Id. When considering whether to allow a supplemental complaint, the Court considers factors such as whether allowing supplementation would serve the interests of judicial economy; whether there is evidence of delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant; whether amendment would impose undue prejudice upon the opposing party; and whether amendment would be futile. See San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. United States Department of the Interior, 236 ...