Patkins v. Lisk

Background

David C. Patkins alleged that A. Lisk, a correctional officer previously employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at the Correctional Training Facility, retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights. According to the complaint, Lisk supervised Patkins in the culinary department, harassed him, accused him of stealing, gave him unfavorable job assignments, caused him to miss meals and work, and wrote false Rule Violation Reports. The court had previously found that, when liberally construed, the complaint stated a valid retaliation claim against Lisk.

Lisk retired in or around April 2020. Patkins argued that her retirement left her unable to provide the equitable relief he sought—expungement or reversal of the reports. He moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d), which allows a court to permit a supplemental pleading describing an event that occurred after the original pleading. Patkins sought to add Craig Koenig, identified as the warden of the Correctional Training Facility, solely to provide any equitable relief the court might order.

The parties’ arguments

Lisk argued that there had been no later event justifying supplementation because Patkins had failed from the beginning to name someone capable of providing the requested relief. The court rejected that argument, explaining that Lisk’s retirement was an event occurring after the original complaint and created a change in circumstances beyond Patkins’s control. The court also noted that Rule 15(d) permits supplementation even if the original pleading was defective.

Patkins stated that he would not add new claims, change the factual bases of his existing claims, or seek new discovery. He sought only to add Koenig so that the requested relief might remain available if the retaliation claim succeeded.

Ruling

The court granted Patkins’s motion. It held that allowing the supplemental complaint would not unfairly prejudice Lisk, substantially expand the case, require new discovery, or require a major change in trial or summary-judgment preparation. Patkins was permitted to file a supplemental complaint adding Craig Koenig as a named defendant by October 8, 2020. The order did not decide whether the alleged retaliation occurred or whether Patkins was entitled to the requested relief.