Jones v. Anorld et al
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 9 Motion to Admit Miscellaneous Records, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/6/17. (Gonzalez, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EDWARD DAVID JONES,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00473-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO ADMIT MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS
(ECF No. 9)
ERIC ARNOLD, et al.,
Plaintiff Edward David Jones (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this
civil action on April 1, 2016. On August 4, 2016, the Court dismissed this action as duplicative
of case number 1:16-cv-00469-DAD-BAM. (ECF No. 3.) Judgment was entered accordingly
that same day. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff has since filed various miscellaneous motions, which the
Court has construed as motions for reconsideration and denied. (ECF Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8.)
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to admit miscellaneous records, filed on
May 30, 2017. Again, Plaintiff’s motion is difficult to understand, but Plaintiff refers to the lack
of supervision of inmates by floor staff officers, contraband among inmates, inmate assaults, and
the death of Plaintiff’s mother after contracting Valley Fever. Plaintiff appears to request an
investigation into an alleged assault on March 13, 2017 that resulted in serious bodily injury.
Plaintiff attaches various exhibits. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff states that he admits these reports,
records and documentation “for review.” (Id. at 1.)
This action has now been closed for ten months. The motion concerns events occurring
long after the action was closed, events unrelated to this action, and events already found to be
duplicative of case number 1:16-cv-00469-DAD-BAM.
Plaintiff is advised that the Court will not serve as a repository for evidence. Parties may
not file evidence with the Court until it becomes necessary to do so in connection with a motion
for summary judgment, trial, or the Court requests otherwise. This action is closed and it is not
necessary for Plaintiff to submit evidence in connection with a motion for summary judgment or
To the extent Plaintiff believes he is in danger, or wishes to raise new claims against new
defendants, he has other avenues or relief available to him, including filing a new action. The
issue is not that Plaintiff’s allegations are not serious or that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief if
sought in the proper forum. The issue is that this action cannot be used by Plaintiff to obtain the
relief he seeks.
Plaintiff is reminded that the Court will not entertain another motion to reconsider the
judgment in this case based on arguments the Court has previously rejected, nor will it entertain
motions on matters completely unrelated to this case.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to admit miscellaneous records, filed on May 30, 2017
(Doc. 9), is HEREBY DENIED. Plaintiff is advised that should he continue to submit unrelated
documents in this closed action, his documents will be returned to him without being filed with
the Court and he may be subject to sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
June 6, 2017
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
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?