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)

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