Wilson v. City of Walnut Creek

Background

Michael Geary Wilson filed his initial complaint concerning an alleged April 20, 2018 incident at Heather Farms Skate Park. He alleged that seventeen teenagers and adults conspired to deny him use of the skate park and that defendants made false reports concerning child abuse by him. After the court allowed Wilson to proceed without paying the filing fee, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

Wilson later filed a First Amended Complaint and moved for permission to serve the new defendants named in it. He relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d), which permits a court, after notice and on appropriate conditions, to allow a supplemental pleading describing events that happened after the earlier pleading. The court explained that this procedure generally is favored, but it cannot be used to add a separate and unrelated cause of action. The standards for supplemental pleadings are similar to those for amended complaints, including consideration of undue prejudice, bad faith, futility, and delay.

The court’s reasoning

The amended complaint retained some allegations about the skate-park incident but also contained more than 600 pages describing separate incidents from 2018 through 2020 and involving dozens of proposed new defendants. The court identified the allegations beginning around paragraph 407 as describing conduct after April 20, 2020, the date of Wilson’s original pleading. Those allegations concerned several other lawsuits and other events, including an alleged falsification of records, a notice about a hearing, and a case being sent back to state court.

The court stated that the new conduct had nothing to do with the April 2018 events and, at minimum, involved separate and distinct causes of action. Although supplemental pleadings may include new claims, the court concluded that adding the proposed claims and defendants would not promote an economical or speedy resolution. It would greatly expand the case to cover events with no apparent relationship to the original allegations.

The court also noted that Wilson had apparently already brought an action before Judge Chesney against the defendants he wanted to serve. Defendants argued that allowing the amendment would require extensive investigation into the matters described in the amended complaint. The court agreed that allowing Wilson to duplicate proceedings already pending in other courts would prejudice the defendants and delay this case.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied Wilson’s motion for leave to serve new defendants. The order did not rule on the merits of Wilson’s underlying claims or dismiss the case.