United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (CORRECTIONS TO COMPL. - ECF NO. 35)
A. LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the court on Plaintiff Alexander Walls' document titled
“Corrections Made to the Original Complaint Docket
#1” (ECF No. 35) (“Corrections”) filed
November 13, 2017.
Corrections, Mr. Walls attempts to brings new allegations
against Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. (“CoreCivic”)
and expands or corrects current allegations. Walls states
that the Complaint contains omissions and a “big
mistake” that he would like to correct for the record.
CoreCivic filed a Response (ECF No. 39) construing the
Corrections as a motion modify the scheduling order and amend
the complaint. CoreCivic opposes any amendment because the
deadline to amend the pleadings expired two years ago.
CoreCivic ar gues tha t Walls has not shown good cause to
modify the scheduling order, the proposed amendments do not
relate back to the original complaint, and Walls unduly
delayed seeking to amend the complaint.
August 17, 2015, the court approved and entered the
parties' joint Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling
Order (ECF No. 17). The order set December 24, 2015, as the
deadline for amending pleadings and adding parties.
Id. at 2, ¶ 3.A.ii. Days before this deadline
expired, the parties stipulated to extend other discovery
deadlines, including the discovery cut-off, expert
disclosures, and dispositive motions, but not the deadline to
amend the pleadings. See Stipulation (ECF No. 20);
Scheduling Order (ECF No. 22). Thus, the pleadings closed on
December 24, 2015.
Walls did not respond to CoreCivic's Motion to Set New
Discovery Deadlines (ECF No. 32), filed in September 2016.
That motion discussed the scheduling order deadlines
CoreCivic sought to extend, including the discovery cut-off,
expert disclosures, and dispositive motions. It did not ask
to reopen the pleadings. When it became clear that a
volunteer lawyer was not available to accept pro bono
appointment, the court set new discovery deadlines.
See Sept. 29, 2017 Order (ECF No. 34). Walls filed
his Corrections six weeks later.
scheduling order is in effect, a request to amend the
pleadings is controlled by Rule 16, rather than Rule
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,
608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). Rule 16 requires a showing of
“good cause” to modify a scheduling order.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). However, the court will not grant a
request made after the deadline expired unless the
movant also demonstrates that the failure to file the motion
before the deadline expired was the result of excusable
neglect. LR 26-4; LR IA 6-1(a). A movant must first
establish good cause and excusable neglect to modify the
scheduling order, and the court will then consider whether
amendment is proper under Rule 15. See Johnson, 975
F.2d at 609. If the moving party was not diligent in
seeking to modify a scheduling order, “the inquiry
should end.” Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232
F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000); see also U.S.
Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768
F.2d 1099, 1104 (9th Cir. 1985) (court may deny as untimely a
motion filed after the scheduling order cut-off date where no
request to modify the order has been made).
the deadline to amend the pleadings expired two years ago.
Mr. Walls has not filed a motion requesting permission to
amend his complaint. He filed the Corrections, but it does
not ask to modify the current scheduling order in order to
reopen the pleadings, provide good cause, or demonstrate
excusable neglect. Because the pleadings closed in December
2015, good cause and excusable neglect are required to modify
the scheduling order to allow Walls to seek permission to
amend the complaint. Even if those standards were addressed,
the Complaint and Corrections cannot be combined to make an
amended complaint. Rather, an amended complaint must be
complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading.
See LR 15-1(a). This is because, as a general rule,
an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint.
Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002,
1008 (9th Cir. 2015); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (once an amended complaint is
filed, the original pleading no longer serves any function in
the case). For these reasons, to the extent Mr. Walls
intended his Corrections as a request to modify the
scheduling order, the request is denied.
respect to correcting the date of the incident in which Walls
was stabbed, CoreCivic acknowledges that the “Facility
records show that the incident actually occurred on January
3, 2014.” See Resp. Ex. 1 (ECF No 30-1),
CoreCivic's 1st Set of Interrogatories to Pl., at 10 n.1.
Mr. Walls may make this correction in the parties' Joint
Pretrial Order when it is due.
IT IS ORDERED: To the extent Plaintiff
Alexander Walls intended his Corrections (ECF No. 35) as a
request to modify the scheduling order to reopen the
pleadings, the request is DENIED, except
that Walls may correct the date of the incident in the Joint
Pretrial Order when it is due.
 Rule 15 requires a plaintiff to obtain
either the court's permission or the defendant's
written consent to amend his pleading after the defendant
files an answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The
court has discretion to grant leave to amend and should
freely do so “when justice so requires.”
Id. However, courts may deny leave to amend if an
amendment will cause: (1) undue delay, (2) undue prejudice to
the opposing party; (3) the request is made in bad faith; (4)
the party has repeatedly failed to cure ...