Kandi v. Management and Training Corporation et al
ORDER DENYING 16 Plaintiff's Motion for Permission to Submit Administrative Remedy Exhibits to the Court Prior to the Court's Screening of Plaintiff's Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/3/2017. (Jessen, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EMIEL A. KANDI,
MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING
CORPORATION, et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00794-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PERMISSION TO SUBMIT
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY EXHIBITS
TO THE COURT PRIOR TO THE COURT’S
SCREENING OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
(ECF No. 16)
Plaintiff Emiel A. Kandi (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff initiated this action on June
8, 2016. (ECF No. 1.)
On September 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant motion, requesting permission to submit
administrative remedy exhibits to the Court in support of his complaint. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff
states that the exhibits are in excess of 468 pages, and that they are vital evidence that he has fully
complied with the requirements of the administrative appeals process. (Id.) Plaintiff also asserts
that the exhibits will assist the Court in screening his complaint. (Id.)
As explained in the First Informational Order issued on June 9, 2016, the Court will not
Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened, but the court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff has filed his
complaint in part under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Generally, suits against federal officers for the violation of constitutional
rights should be filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
serve as a repository for the parties’ evidence. (ECF No. 6.) Evidence, such as prison or medical
records and inmate appeals, need not be submitted until it becomes necessary to do so in
connection with a motion for summary judgment, trial or the Court requests otherwise. (Id.) At
this point, the submission of evidence is unnecessary, as Plaintiff is only required to state a prima
facie claim for relief.
Furthermore, the Court has not screened Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a). If, upon screening, Plaintiff has not stated any cognizable claims, but may be able to
do so through amendment, his Complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. If Plaintiff feels
compelled to submit exhibits with any such amended complaint, he is reminded that such exhibits
must be attached to the complaint and must be incorporated by reference. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 10(c).
However, as the Court must assume that Plaintiff’s factual allegations are true for screening
purposes, it is generally unnecessary to submit exhibits in support of the allegations of the
complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due course.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for permission to submit administrative remedy exhibits
prior to the Court’s screening of his complaint is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 3, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?