Dominguez v. Archambeault
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — “The purpose of Rule 5 ||15(d) is to
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se petitioner's motion to supplement his Third Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with post-petition exhibits. The court granted the motion, finding that the exhibits were relevant and that no prejudice to the non-opposing respondents was shown.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Supplement Pleadings Granted“Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to supplement is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d), which allows supplemental pleadings to set out events occurring after the original pleading. The court noted the exhibits (grievances, medical records, news articles) occurred after the petition was filed and related to the claims. The court also correctly noted the liberal construction of Rule 15(d) and the lack of prejudice, as respondents did not oppose the motion. The decision follows from the cited authorities and the facts recited. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the governing rule (Rule 15(d)), cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority for the liberal construction of the rule, and applies the rule to the specific facts (post-petition exhibits, no opposition, no prejudice). The reasoning directly answers the motion with the right authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || Dominguez, Case No.: 20cv1384-JO-AHG 12 Plaintitt | ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’ 13 || Vv. MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT 14 || Archambeault et al, PLEADINGS 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 On March 26, 2021, Petitioner Ramon Dominguez, currently detained in civi 21 |/immigration detention at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility (IRDF) and □□□□□□□□□□ 22 ||pro se, filed a Third Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. | 23 ||2241. Dkt. 13 (“Petition”). Petitioner seeks immediate release from Immigration an: 24 Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinemen 25 ||posed by COVID-19 and other factors in violation of his Fifth Amendment due proces 26 ||tights. See id. On February 22, 2022, Petitioner filed a motion to supplement pleading 47 and/or to add to the record. Dkt. 26. Respondents do not oppose the motion. Dkt. 28. 28 1 Requests to supplement a pleading are governed by Rule 15(d), which provides that 2 ||“[o}]n motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a 3 ||supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after 4 date of the pleading to be supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). “The purpose of Rule 5 ||15(d) is to promote as complete an adjudication of the dispute between the parties as 6 |}possible.” William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Cont'l Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 7 (9th Cir. 1981). Rule 15(d) is liberally construed absent a showing of prejudice to 8 ||the opposing party. Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 475 (9th Cir. 1988); LaSalvia v. United 9 || Dairymen of Ariz., 804 F.2d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 1986). The court has broad discretion to 10 || permit a supplemental pleading. Keith, 858 F.2d at 473. 1] In this case, Petitioner requests to supplement his pleading with exhibits that post- 12 the Petition to support his claims of unconstitutional conditions of confinement. For 13 |}example, the exhibits include grievances filed against IRDF, medical records, and news 14 |larticles and reports that occurred after the date the Petition was filed. The exhibits relate 15 Petitioner’s claims and serve to promote a more complete adjudication of the dispute 16 || between the parties. Moreover, there is no showing of prejudice to Respondents, who have 17 ||not opposed the motion. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to supplement is GRANTED. 18 19 |} ITIS SO ORDERED. 20 21 || Dated: b| 1 ) 22 EV 23 Honorable Jinsook Ohta 54 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28