Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00713/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00713-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN T. MISKO,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM SULLIVAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00713-SMS PC

ORDER DENYINGPLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR

ORDER TO ATTACH EXHIBITS TO FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 7)

Plaintiff John T. Misko (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court screened Plaintiff’s

complaint, found that he had not stated any cognizable claims, and issued an order on November 23,

2010, dismissing the complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 6.) On December 27, 2010, Plaintiff

filed a first amended complaint and an application for an order to attach complaint exhibits to his

amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 7, 8.)

Any exhibits attached to the complaint must be incorporated by reference. Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

10(c). Thus, any exhibits attached to the amended complaint must be specifically referenced. For

example, Plaintiff must state “see Exhibit A” or something similar in order to direct the Court to the

specific exhibit Plaintiff is referencing. Further, if the exhibit consists of more than one page,

Plaintiff must reference the specific page of the exhibit (i.e. “See Exhibit A, page 3”). Plaintiff’s

amended complaint fails to reference any exhibits and the Court will not wade through exhibits to

determine whether cognizable claims are, or might be able to be stated. 

For screening purposes, the Court must assume that Plaintiff’s factual allegations are true. 

1

Case 1:10-cv-00713-LJO-BAM Document 10 Filed 08/02/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Therefore, it is generally unnecessary for Plaintiff to submit exhibits in support of the allegations in

a complaint. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an order to attach exhibits to first amended complaint,

filed December 27, 2010, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2011 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-00713-LJO-BAM Document 10 Filed 08/02/11 Page 2 of 2