Kandi v. Management and Training Corporation et al

Filing 18

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EMIEL A. KANDI, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. 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) Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Emiel A. Kandi (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 18 pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff initiated this action on June 19 8, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On September 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant motion, requesting permission to submit 20 21 administrative remedy exhibits to the Court in support of his complaint. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff 22 states that the exhibits are in excess of 468 pages, and that they are vital evidence that he has fully 23 complied with the requirements of the administrative appeals process. (Id.) Plaintiff also asserts 24 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 25 26 1 27 28 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 (1971). 1 1 serve as a repository for the parties’ evidence. (ECF No. 6.) Evidence, such as prison or medical 2 records and inmate appeals, need not be submitted until it becomes necessary to do so in 3 connection with a motion for summary judgment, trial or the Court requests otherwise. (Id.) At 4 this point, the submission of evidence is unnecessary, as Plaintiff is only required to state a prima 5 facie claim for relief. 6 Furthermore, the Court has not screened Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 7 1915A(a). If, upon screening, Plaintiff has not stated any cognizable claims, but may be able to 8 do so through amendment, his Complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. If Plaintiff feels 9 compelled to submit exhibits with any such amended complaint, he is reminded that such exhibits 10 must be attached to the complaint and must be incorporated by reference. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 10(c). 11 However, as the Court must assume that Plaintiff’s factual allegations are true for screening 12 purposes, it is generally unnecessary to submit exhibits in support of the allegations of the 13 complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due course. 14 15 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for permission to submit administrative remedy exhibits prior to the Court’s screening of his complaint is HEREBY DENIED. 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara January 3, 2017 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 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?