Giles v. Davis
- Gonzalez Rogers
- 4:18-cv-07466
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Giles v. Davis, Judge Gonzalez Rogers denied Giles leave to add unrelated claims, denied defendants’ motions as moot, and set briefing deadlines.
Ossie Giles, the defendants in the existing action, and the five proposed new defendants whose claims were not added to this case.
What happened
In Giles v. Davis, Ossie Giles, a state prisoner representing himself, asked to add harassment and retaliation claims involving five new defendants and events from 2019. The existing case concerned different events and defendants from 2017.
The court denied Giles’s request for leave to file the supplemental complaint. It found that the proposed claims were unrelated, came late, included at least one claim that had not finished the prison appeal process, and lacked a demonstrated reason for the delay. The court said Giles could pursue those claims in a new civil-rights case.
The court also denied defendants’ motions as moot because Giles’s original complaint remained the operative complaint. Judge Gonzalez Rogers ordered defendants to file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion within 60 days and set deadlines for the parties’ responses.
The detailed version
- Giles v. Davis · No. 4:18-cv-07466
- Gonzalez Rogers
- Dec. 9, 2019
Background
Ossie Giles, a state prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking money damages. He was representing himself. The original complaint concerned allegations that prison officials falsely authored a Rules Violation Report and related reports, removed Giles from his housing, and placed him in administrative segregation during November and December 2017. The court’s earlier screening order allowed some First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and due-process claims to proceed and dismissed other claims, including the claim against Warden Ron Davis.
Giles later filed a document that the court treated as a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d). The proposed complaint added harassment and retaliation claims against five new defendants based on events occurring in 2019. Giles described the new events as part of an ongoing campaign, but the court found that explanation conclusory. Giles also acknowledged that at least one claim involving Officer V. Michael was still being reviewed in the prison’s highest appeal level.
Ruling
The court denied Giles’s motion for leave to file the supplemental complaint. It found that the proposed claims were unrelated to the original case, would significantly expand the action by adding five defendants and later events, were filed after the original defendants had been served and the case had advanced, included an unexhausted claim, and lacked a demonstrated reason for the delay. The court directed the clerk to return the supplemental complaint and exhibits to Giles and stated that he could pursue those claims in a new civil-rights action by paying the $400 filing fee or submitting an application to proceed without paying the fee.
Because the original complaint remained the operative complaint, the court denied as moot defendants’ motion asking the court to screen the supplemental complaint and their administrative motion asking the court to clarify which complaint controlled. Judge Gonzalez Rogers ordered defendants to file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion within 60 days of the order. The court also set deadlines for Giles’s opposition and defendants’ reply and stated that no hearing would be held unless the court later ordered one.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.