Mullin v. City of Mountain View, California
- Beth Freeman
- 5:25-cv-02191
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Mullin v. City of Mountain View, Judge Freeman denied Mullin’s request to add materials because they were untimely or unrelated to his claims.
Tyghe James Mullin’s request to add materials to his pleading was denied; the order did not decide the merits of his constitutional claims.
What happened
In Mullin v. City of Mountain View, Tyghe James Mullin sued the City of Mountain View and several police officers over an alleged illegal investigation, search, seizure, and arrest.
Mullin asked to add exhibits under a rule allowing later events to be added to a complaint. He said he was not trying to change his claims or add defendants, but wanted the court to consider materials concerning related events.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the motion because most materials concerned events before Mullin filed his complaint, while the remaining materials concerned state-court matters unrelated to his claims against the City and police officers. The court also vacated the previously scheduled hearing.
The detailed version
- Mullin v. City of Mountain View, California · No. 5:25-cv-02191
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 21, 2025
Background
Tyghe James Mullin, representing himself, sued the City of Mountain View and several Mountain View Police Department officers. His second amended complaint alleges that officers tracked him to a rental storage unit using an Apple AirTag, entered the unit, found stolen property and other contraband, and arrested him. Mullin alleges violations of federal and state constitutional rights and seeks declaratory relief, an injunction, damages, fees, and costs.
The second amended complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against certain government actors for violating constitutional rights, including claims concerning search and seizure, due process, municipal liability, retaliation, and access to the courts. It also asserts a claim under the California Constitution.
Motion to Add Later Materials
Mullin moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) for permission to file a supplemental complaint and asked the court to consider exhibits. Rule 15(d) permits a court to allow a party to add matters concerning transactions, occurrences, or events that happened after the pleading being supplemented. Mullin stated that he did not seek to amend the complaint or add defendants or causes of action.
The court considered all of the exhibits submitted with the motion. It found that most fell outside Rule 15(d) because they concerned events before Mullin filed his second amended complaint on April 25, 2025. These included a 2022 encounter with San Jose police officers, the appointment of counsel in December 2023, filings in Mullin’s state criminal case that predated the second amended complaint, and a November 2024 appeal.
The court found that three exhibits concerned events after April 25, 2025, but were unrelated to Mullin’s claims against the City and the Mountain View police officers. Those materials concerned a complaint about a state judge, a notice seeking that judge’s disqualification, and a notice expressing suspicions about state-court filings. Mullin did not explain how those documents supplemented his claims in this case.
Ruling
The court held that the proposed materials either concerned events that occurred before the second amended complaint was filed or were unrelated to the claims in that complaint. Even construing Mullin’s motion liberally, the court denied his motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint under Rule 15(d).
Judge Beth Labson Freeman vacated the hearing previously set for August 28, 2025. The order also terminated ECF 45. The opinion states that the defendants’ separate motion to dismiss and the initial case-management conference were scheduled for October 16, 2025; those matters were not decided in this order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.