Kandi v. Management and Training Corporation et al

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 29 Motion to Introduce Relevant Evidence Prior to Screening, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 09/19/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

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 TO INTRODUCE RELEVANT EVIDENCE PRIOR TO SCREENING (ECF No. 29) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Emiel A. Kandi (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff initiated this action on 19 June 8, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) 20 On August 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking to introduce relevant 21 evidence prior to the screening of the second amended complaint. (ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff states 22 that the sworn affidavit and attached exhibits are newly discovered and relevant evidence in this 23 case, and make clear the truth of his claims. (Id.) As explained in the First Informational Order issued on June 9, 2016, and in the Court’s 24 25 January 3, 2017 order denying Plaintiff’s motion for permission to submit administrative remedy 26 1 27 28 Plaintiff’s second amended 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 Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 1 1 exhibits, the Court will not serve as a repository for the parties’ evidence. (ECF No. 6, p. 3.) 2 Evidence, such as prison or medical records and inmate appeals, need not be submitted until it 3 becomes necessary to do so in connection with a motion for summary judgment, trial, or the 4 Court requests otherwise. (Id.) At this point, the submission of evidence is unnecessary, as 5 Plaintiff is only required to state a prima facie claim for relief. 6 Furthermore, the Court has not screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint under 28 7 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). If, upon screening, Plaintiff has not stated any cognizable claims, but may be 8 able to do so through amendment, the operative complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. 9 If Plaintiff feels compelled to submit exhibits with any such amended complaint, he is reminded 10 that such exhibits must be attached to the complaint and must be incorporated by reference. Fed. 11 R. Civ. P. 10(c). However, as the Court must assume that Plaintiff’s factual allegations are true 12 for screening purposes, it is generally unnecessary to submit exhibits in support of the allegations 13 of the complaint. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint will be screened in due course. 14 15 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to introduce relevant evidence prior to screening, (ECF No. 29) is HEREBY DENIED. 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara September 19, 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?