Dominguez v. Archambeault

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA || Dominguez, Case No.: 20cv1384-JO-AHG 12 Plaintitt | ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’ || Vv. MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT || Archambeault et al, PLEADINGS 15 Defendants.

20 On March 26, 2021, Petitioner Ramon Dominguez, currently detained in civi |/immigration detention at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility (IRDF) and □□□□□□□□□□ ||pro se, filed a Third Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. | ||2241. Dkt. 13 (“Petition”). Petitioner seeks immediate release from Immigration an: 24 Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinemen ||posed by COVID-19 and other factors in violation of his Fifth Amendment due proces ||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.

1 Requests to supplement a pleading are governed by Rule 15(d), which provides that ||“[o}]n motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a ||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 ||15(d) is to promote as complete an adjudication of the dispute between the parties as |}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 ||the opposing party. Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 475 (9th Cir. 1988); LaSalvia v. United || Dairymen of Ariz., 804 F.2d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 1986). The court has broad discretion to || 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 |}example, the exhibits include grievances filed against IRDF, medical records, and news |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 || between the parties. Moreover, there is no showing of prejudice to Respondents, who have ||not opposed the motion. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to supplement is GRANTED.

19 |} ITIS SO ORDERED.

21 || Dated: b| 1 ) 22 EV 23 Honorable Jinsook Ohta 54 United States District Judge