Arias v. Johal et al

Filing 46

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Evidence in Support of Amended Complaint 44 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/23/17. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARIO MARTINEZ ARIAS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
A. K. JOHAL, et al.,

15

Case No. 1:14-cv-00764-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
(ECF No. 44)

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Mario Martinez Arias (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

17
18

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently

19

proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendant Johal for deliberate

20

indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

21

On September 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to introduce supplemental

22

evidence in support of the amended complaint. (ECF No. 44.) Defendant did not file a response,

23

and the deadline for filing a response has expired. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule

24

230(l).

25

In his motion, Plaintiff states merely that he requests permission to add supplemental

26

evidence in support of the amended complaint, and cites to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d).

27

(ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff attaches various medical records as exhibits, without further explanation

28

of their significance or relevance.
1

1

As explained in the First Informational Order issued on May 21, 2014, the Court will not

2

serve as a repository for the parties’ evidence. (ECF No. 2, p. 3.) Evidence, such as prison or

3

medical records and inmate appeals, need not be submitted until it becomes necessary to do so in

4

connection with a motion for summary judgment, trial, or the Court requests otherwise. (Id.)

5

Defendant Johal filed an answer to the first amended complaint on April 5, 2017, (ECF

6

No. 39), and this case is now in discovery. There are no motions pending that require the

7

submission of evidence, and the Court does not find the submission of evidence necessary at this

8

time.

9
10

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to file supplemental evidence, (ECF No. 44) is HEREBY
DENIED.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

October 23, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2