Opinion
1:21-cv-00068 (Erie)
09-13-2021
EDWARD MAJOR, Plaintiff v. DR. HALLIGAN, ET. AL., Defendants
ORDER CONCERNING ECF NO. 42
HON. RICHARD A. LANZILLO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Edward Major (“Plaintiff”) has filed a document which has been docketed as a “Proposed Supplement.” ECF No. 42. The Court construes this filing as a motion to supplement Plaintiff's original pleading. So construed, the motion is DENIED. Upon review, it appears that Plaintiff is seeking to supplement his original Complaint to add a new claim against defendants not named in Plaintiff's operative pleading. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges First Amendment retaliation based on conduct which occurred after he initiated this civil action. He states, for example, that
Almost immediately after I (Plaintiff Edward Major) filed and started receiving legal mail concerning my civil complaints from Deputy Attorney General Mrs. Amanda Scarpo … staff members began harassing and retaliatory treatments toward me for my filing.Id. p. 1. He later indicates that these retaliatory actions all took place “after I filed this civil suit action against Defendants from this prison.” Id., p. 2. To the extent that Plaintiff believes he has been subjected to constitutional violations which have occurred since the filing of his Complaint, he should follow the Department of Corrections' administrative grievance policy and/or file a new lawsuit along with a new motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff cannot supplement his existing Complaint with new allegations that occurred after he filed his case. See, e.g., Sides v. Wetzel, 2021 WL 3810247, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2021).
A copy of the Court's recent opinion Sides v. Wetzel, 2021 WL 3810247 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2021) is being mailed to the Plaintiff together with a copy of this Order as a courtesy.