Derwin Butler, Sr. v. Escamilla et al
ORDER REGARDING Miscellaneous Filing signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/10/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DERWIN BUTLER, SR.,
CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00623-MJS (PC)
ORDER REGARDING MISCELLANEOUS
(ECF No. 16)
ESCAMILLA, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 13, 2017, the Court
dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, but gave him leave to amend. (ECF No.
11.) Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on July 5, 2017. (ECF No. 17.) It awaits
screening by the Court..
On June 19, 2017, Plaintiff submitted copies of various medical records to the
Court via a letter which did not explain his purpose or intent in doing so.
To the extent Plaintiff intends these documents to supplement his complaint,
Local Rule 220 requires that a complaint be complete in itself without reference to any
prior pleading. The Court will not consider these documents when screening Plaintiff’s
second amended complaint. If Plaintiff believes his second amended complaint is
deficient, he must seek and obtain leave to amend.
To the extent Plaintiff intends the proffered documents to be used as evidence to
help prove his claims, the Court cannot and will not serve as a repository for evidence.
Parties may not file evidence with the Court until the course of litigation brings the
evidence into question (for example, on a motion for summary judgment, at trial, or when
requested by the Court). Plaintiff’s second amended complaint has not yet been
screened, no motions for summary judgment are before the Court, and no trial date has
been set. In this circumstance, (e.g., prison or medical records, affidavits, declarations,
Since Plaintiff’s filing is not, and does not relate to, a motion or an amendment to
a pleading or anything else properly before the Court at this time, it will not be
considered. Further such submissions will be rejected and the attempt to file same may
subject Plaintiff to sanctions.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s miscellaneous
filing (ECF No. 16) be disregarded.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 10, 2017
Michael J. Seng
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?