Sammy L. Jackson, Plaintiff-appellant, v. U.S. Secret Service; Bank One, A/k/a Valley National Bank;corporation of the State of Arizona; Scottsdaleunified School District, Defendants-appellees,andindustrial Indemnity; Coregis, Defendants, 122 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 1997)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Sammy L. Jackson appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his action against defendants. Specifically, Jackson contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to file a supplemental complaint and his motion for entry of a default: judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 We review for abuse of discretion the district court's denial of these motions, see Maljack Prods. Inc v. GoodTimes Home Video Corp., 81 F.3d 881, 888 (9th Cir. 1996); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986), and we affirm.

Although Jackson argues that a motion to file a supplemental complaint should be analyzed differently from a motion to amend a complaint, we think that the motions are sufficiently similar to be analyzed under the same principles. Here, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jackson's motion to file a supplemental complaint in light of its conclusion that amendment would be futile. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996).

Because the defendants timely responded to Jackson's complaint with either answers or motions to dismiss, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jackson's motions for entry of default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55.

AFFIRMED.¹