Denegal v. Farrell et al

Filing 51

ORDER denying 44 Motion for permission to expand the record signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/6/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DWAYNE DENEGAL, 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01251-DAD-MJS (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO EXPAND THE RECORD v. R. FARRELL, et al., 14 (ECF No. 44) Defendants. 15 16 17 Plaintiff Dwayne Denegal, also known as Fatima Shabazz, is a state prisoner 18 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment equal 20 protection claims against Defendants Coffin, Cryer, Lewis, and Sundaram, and Eighth 21 Amendment medical indifference claims against these Defendants and Defendant 22 Farrell. 23 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s September 15, 2017 motion for permission to 24 expand the record. (ECF No. 44.) Defendants filed no response and the time for doing 25 so has passed. The matter is submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. To the extent Plaintiff intended to use her motion 2 to submit evidence in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, that motion to dismiss 3 since has been denied. (ECF No. 45.) Thus, any request in that regard is moot. 4 To the extent Plaintiff intends her submission to amend or supplement her 5 complaint, she is reminded that a complaint must be complete in itself without reference 6 to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. If she wishes to include new or additional 7 allegations in this action, she must move to amend her complaint. Piecemeal allegations 8 will not be considered. 9 Finally, to the extent Plaintiff merely seeks to introduce additional evidence to 10 support her claims, her request is impermissible. Parties may not file evidence with the 11 Court until the course of litigation brings the evidence into question (for example, on a 12 motion for summary judgment, at trial, or when requested by the Court). Presently, no 13 motions for summary judgment are before the Court and no trial date has been set. In 14 this circumstance, the Court cannot and will not serve as a repository for Plaintiff’s 15 evidence (e.g., prison or medical records, affidavits, declarations, etc.). 16 17 Based on the foregoing, the motion for permission to expand the record is HEREBY DENIED. 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 6, 2017 /s/ 21 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?