Picart v. Enonmeh, et al.

Filing 24

ORDER Striking Plaintiff's Declaration and Explanation for Filing Additional Exhibits 12 , 13 ; ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief 21 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 9/6/11. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

HECTOR LEONEL PICART,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.
A. ENONMEH, et al.,

13

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00157-SMS PC
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S
DECLARATION AND EXPLANATION FOR
FILING ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS
(ECF Nos. 12, 13)

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

14
/ (ECF No. 21)
15
16

I.

Procedural History

17

Plaintiff Hector Leonel Picart (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint in this

19

action on January 28, 2011, alleging violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act and deliberate

20

indifference due to the failure to refer him to a specialist for his Tourette’s Syndrome, denial of

21

orthopedic shoes and physical therapy, and state law claims. (ECF No. 1.) On February 22, 2011,

22

Plaintiff filed a declaration and a memorandum and points of authority and explanation for filing

23

additional attachments. (ECF Nos. 12, 13.) On May 5, 2011, Plaintiff filed an affidavit requesting

24

he be transferred to the California Medical Facility to receive adequate treatment for his Tourette’s

25

Syndrome.

26

II.

Additional Exhibits to Complaint

27

Local Rule 220 provides, in relevant part, every pleading shall be “complete in itself without

28

reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Plaintiff seeks to add his declaration and exhibits to
1

1

the complaint. However, under Rule 220, Plaintiff may not amend the complaint by adding

2

information or exhibits piecemeal after the complaint has been filed. An amended complaint

3

supercedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997);

4

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference

5

to the prior or superceded pleading.” Local Rule 220. To add the exhibit, Plaintiff must file a new,

6

amended complaint. Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves

7

any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each

8

claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

9

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s

10

pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise,

11

a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave

12

shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Because Plaintiff has not

13

amended the Complaint, and no responsive pleading has been served in this action, Plaintiff has

14

leave to file an amended complaint as a matter of course.

15

Plaintiff is advised that for screening purposes, the Court must assume that Plaintiff’s factual

16

allegations are true. Therefore, it is generally unnecessary for Plaintiff to submit exhibits in support

17

of the allegations in a complaint. Plaintiff’s declaration and explanation for filing additional exhibits

18

will be stricken from the record.

19

III.

Motion for Injunctive Relief

20

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order transferring him to a medical facility in light of his

21

current medical condition. The federal court’s jurisdiction is limited in nature and its power to issue

22

equitable orders may not go beyond what is necessary to correct the underlying constitutional

23

violations which form the actual case or controversy. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers v. Earth

24

Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, ___, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009); Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better

25

Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998); City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101,

26

103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010).

27

Plaintiff’s claim in this action arises from past incidents in which Defendants failed to accommodate

28

his medical needs. The pendency of this action does not confer on the Court jurisdiction to issue an
2

1

order directing that Plaintiff be transferred to a medical institution, because such an order would not

2

remedy the underlying legal claim, which involves Defendants’ past conduct. 18 U.S.C. §

3

3626(a)(1)(A); Summers, 129 S.Ct. 1142 at 1149; Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 103-04; Lyons, 461 U.S.

4

at 101; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

5

Additionally, the Prison Litigation Reform Act places limitations on injunctive relief.

6

Section 3626(a)(1)(A) provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect

7

to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right

8

of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief

9

unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct

10

the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation

11

of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). The relief Plaintiff is seeking is not narrowly

12

drawn and extends further than necessary to correct the alleged violation of his federal rights.

13

IV.

Order

14

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

16

Plaintiff’s declaration and explanation for filing additional exhibits, filed February
22, 2011, are STRICKEN from the record; and

17

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, filed May 27, 2011, is DENIED.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
icido3

September 6, 2011

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3