United States District Court, E.D. California
(30) DAY DEADLINE
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO SUPPLEMENT
(ECF Nos. 13, 16) SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
Barbara A. McAuliffe, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Peter Gerard Wahl (“Plaintiff”), a former state
prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
initiated this action on October 19, 2016. (ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.
(ECF No. 7.)
Motions to Supplement
Currently pending before the court are Plaintiff's
motions to supplement filed on January 13, 2017, and March 6,
2017. (ECF Nos. 13, 16.) For the reasons discussed below,
Plaintiff's motions to supplement shall be denied.
Motion filed January 3, 2017
November 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a supplement to his
original complaint. (ECF No. 8.) Thereafter, on December 7,
2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to supplement his original
complaint. (ECF No. 9.) On January 13, 2017, the Court signed
an order disregarding Plaintiff's supplemental pleading,
denying his motion to supplement and granting him leave to
amend his complaint within thirty (30) days. The order was
docketed on January 17, 2017. (ECF No. 14.)
the Court's order granting leave to amend was docketed,
however, Plaintiff filed a second motion to supplement his
original complaint. (ECF No. 13.) During pendency of the
motion to supplement, Plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint on February 16, 2017. (ECF No. 15.) Because
Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint, Plaintiff's
request to supplement his original complaint is now moot and
is HEREBY DENIED. See, e.g., Lacey v.
Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en
banc) (an amended complaint supersedes the original
Motion filed March 6, 2017
indicated, on March 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to
supplement his first amended complaint. (ECF No. 16.) By his
motion, Plaintiff requests that his civil action be
supplemented “with recently acquired clarification that
specifically delineates the reclassification was had under
Prop 64; and, jail credits were awarded. Indisputably and
conclusively showing defendant lost lawful jurisdiction of my
person on 12/01/16.” (Id. at p. 1.) Attached
to his moving papers are minutes from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Orange, in Case: 16WF1633M
A and Name: Wahl, Peter Gerard. (Id. at p. 2.) The
minutes span the time period from November 15, 2016, to
January 23, 2017. (Id.)
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) states, “[o]n 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.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(d). Here, Plaintiff's motion alleges no new facts that
arose subsequent to his first amended complaint to support a
supplemental pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). As
noted, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint in
February 2017, which was after the proceedings reflected in
the minutes of the Orange County Superior Court took place.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to supplement his
complaint filed on March 6, 2017, is HEREBY DENIED. However,
the court is not precluded from taking judicial notice of
court records in other cases. See United States v.
Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2004).
Screening Requirement and Standard
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against
an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion
thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),
(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . .
.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a
plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts
“are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially
plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow
the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss
v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th
Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted
unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with
liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility
standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949
(quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
formerly confined at Wasco State Prison, brings suit against
the following defendants: (1) Warden John Sutton; (2)
Counselor Jane/John Doe; (3) J. Albert, CCII; and (4)
Assistant Deputy Chief Warden Jane Doe.
first claim, Plaintiff alleges: On August 18, 2016, Plaintiff
was sentenced to 16 months in Case No. 16WF1633. On September
7, 2016, Defendants took custody of Plaintiff. However,
Plaintiff sought relief in the sentencing court under Proper
47. On November 30, 2016, the sentencing court reclassified
Plaintiff's felony to a misdemeanor and resentenced
Plaintiff to 180 days (deemed served). Once Plaintiff learned
of the sentencing, he submitted grievances “everywhere,
” but no grievances were answered. (ECF No. 15 at p.
3.) Instead, Plaintiff was released under Prop 64 by
Defendants with “summary probation.”
(Id.) Plaintiff checked Case No. 16WF1633 and found
no probation. Plaintiff sought emergency relief and submitted
grievances to Defendants J. Albert, Counselor Jane/John Doe,
Assistant Deputy Chief ...