George v. Wilson Julius , in his capacity as the Director of Prisons et al

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
ELISTON GEORGE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. )
) Civil Action No. 2013-0047
JULIUS WILSON, BASIL RICHARDS, and )
SHELLY DEWESE, )
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________________________ )
Attorneys:
Eliston George, pro se
Erika M. Scott, Esq.,
St. Croix, U.S.V.I.
For Defendants
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to Supplement Pleadings,”
which was filed on March 18, 2016. (Dkt. No. 15). In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks to supplement
his Complaint pursuant to Rules 15(d) and 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.).
The time period for filing a response has expired without a response from Defendants. See LCRI
7.1(e) (“A party shall file a response within fourteen (14) days after service of the motion.”).1 For
the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Eliston George (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Defendants Julius Wilson, former Director of the Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections,
Basil Richards, former Warden of the Golden Grove Adult Corrections Facility (“Golden Grove”),
1 According to the Certificate of Service that accompanied Plaintiff’s Motion, a copy of Plaintiff’s Motion was mailed
to counsel for Defendants on March 14, 2016. (Dkt. No. 15 at 6).
Case: 1:13-cv-00047-RAM-EAH Document #: 16 Filed: 04/25/16 Page 1 of 4

2
and Shelley Dewese, the Grievance Coordinator at Golden Grove, in their official and individual
capacities. (See Dkt. No. 1). In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he does not have access to the
Virgin Islands Code, Digest, and Reports; Defendants have not adequately addressed his
grievances; and his transfer to Keen Mountain Correctional Center in Virginia violates the
Compact Clause of the United States Constitution. (See id.). Defendants have moved to dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 9, 10).
II. DISCUSSION
A. Applicable Legal Principles
Rule 15(d), which “provides for supplemental pleadings while the matter is still pending
in the District Court so as to permit the parties to bring the controversy up to date,” Brill v. General
Industrial Enterprises, Inc., 234 F.2d 465, 470 (3d Cir. 1956), states:
On 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 the date of the pleading to be supplemented. The court may permit
supplementation even though the original pleading is defective in stating a claim or
defense. The court may order that the opposing party plead to the supplemental
pleading within a specified time.
FED. R. CIV. P. 15(d). Generally, courts grant motions to file a supplemental pleading when the
supplemental pleading does not prejudice the opposing party. See, e.g., Quarantino v. Tiffany &
Co., 71 F.3d 58, 66 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Leave is normally granted, especially when the opposing party
is not prejudiced by the supplemental pleading.”).
Rule 18(a) provides that “[a] party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-
party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an
opposing party.” FED. R. CIV. P. 18(a). The Advisory Committee Notes to the 1996 amendment to
Rule 18(a) state that “Rule 18(a) has permitted a party to plead multiple claims of all types against
an opposing party, subject to the court’s power to direct an appropriate procedure for trying the
Case: 1:13-cv-00047-RAM-EAH Document #: 16 Filed: 04/25/16 Page 2 of 4

3
claims.” FED. R. CIV. P. 18(a) advisory committee’s note to 1996 amendment (citing FED. R. CIV.
P. 42(b), 20(b), 21). Thus, joinder of “completely unrelated claims” is permitted under Rule 18(a).
Gerardi v. Pelullo, 16 F.3d 1363, 1372 n.16 (3d Cir. 1994).
B. Analysis
In his Supplemental Pleading, Plaintiff alleges that “[o]n January 8, 2016, [he,] for the
second consecutive time[,] requested access to specific legal material, namely Virgin Islands
Primary Law consisting of (1) Virgin Islands Code Annotated; (2) Virgin Islands Sessions Law;
(3) Virgin Islands Judicial Decisions; and (4) Virgin Islands Court Rules Annotated available to
Virgin Islands inmates via Lexis Nexis compact disk.” (Dkt. No. 15 at 1-2). In response to his
request, Plaintiff states that the “Virginia Department of Corrections, Institutional Program
Manager, Ms. Taylor” informed him that the compact disk “is no longer compatible with [the]
Virginia DOC Law Library.” (Id. at 2). He also states that “Ms. Taylor forwarded [his request] to
[D]efendant Shelley Dewese on February 5, 2016.” (Id.). Plaintiff contends that more than thirty
days have passed since his request was brought to the attention of Defendants, and that there has
been no response. (Id.).
Plaintiff also correctly asserts in his Supplemental Pleading that “Rick Mullgrav is the
current Director of the Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections” and “Mildred Trotter[] is the current
Warden of [the] Golden Grove Correctional Facility.” (Id. at 2-3). Plaintiff has amended the
caption of this case accordingly. (See id. at 1).
Because Plaintiff’s Supplemental Pleading sets forth events that have happened since his
original Complaint was filed on April 30, 2013 (see Dkt. No. 1) and brings the case up to date by
naming the proper Defendants, the Court finds that Plaintiff has appropriately sought leave to
supplement pursuant to Rule 15(d). The Court does not find, however, that Plaintiff has asserted
Case: 1:13-cv-00047-RAM-EAH Document #: 16 Filed: 04/25/16 Page 3 of 4

4
an “independent or alternative” claim pursuant to Rule 18(a). In his original Complaint, Plaintiff
alleged that he did not have access to the Virgin Islands Code, Digest, and Reports. (See id. at 6).
Plaintiff’s claim regarding his alleged lack of access to the Lexis Nexis compact disk in his
Supplemental Pleading is therefore related to the allegations contained in his original Complaint.
In the same vein, the facts alleged in the original Complaint placed Defendants on notice
of Plaintiff’s claims regarding his access to Virgin Islands legal materials. Therefore, the Court
finds that Defendants will suffer no prejudice if Plaintiff is granted leave to file his Supplemental
Pleading. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s instant Motion under Rule 15(d), and require
Defendants to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Pleading within two weeks of
the date of this Order.
UPON CONSIDERATION of the foregoing, and the entire record herein, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to Supplement Pleadings” is GRANTED; and it is
further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Supplemental Pleading (Dkt. No. 15) is ACCEPTED; and it
is further
ORDERED that Defendants shall file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s Supplemental
Pleading by May 9, 2016.
SO ORDERED.
Date: April 25, 2016 _______/s/_________
WILMA A. LEWIS
Chief Judge
Case: 1:13-cv-00047-RAM-EAH Document #: 16 Filed: 04/25/16 Page 4 of 4