Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00226/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00226-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD A. EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00226-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR COPIES OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS

(ECF No. 29)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF A THIRD 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Richard Evans (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On October 30, 2019, the Court issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint 

failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and failed to state a cognizable claim 

upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff was directed to file an amended 

complaint within thirty days. (Id.) Plaintiff was granted two extensions of time to file his 

amended complaint, which was due on or before January 22, 2020. (ECF Nos. 17, 19.)

Since the Court granted Plaintiff his second extension of time to file his amended 

complaint, Plaintiff has filed seven documents, all purporting to be notices to the Court or some 

type of judicial or administrative notice. (See ECF Nos. 20–25, 27.) On February 10, 2020, 

Plaintiff also filed a motion seeking “Copies of Appeal Proceedings A151459,” which appears to 

Case 1:19-cv-00226-DAD-BAM Document 32 Filed 02/13/20 Page 1 of 3
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

2

refer to documents from a case in Solano County. (ECF No. 29.)

With respect to Plaintiff’s request for copies in the Solano County litigation, the motion is 

denied. The Court does not possess the “official appeal proceedings” that Plaintiff appears to be 

requesting, and it appears from the motion that the request was originally intended to be 

submitted to the First District Court of Appeal, rather than to the undersigned.

The Court has reviewed the various “notices” filed by Plaintiff from January 6, 2020 

through February 3, 2020, (ECF Nos. 20–25, 27), and finds that they generally do not apply to the 

instant action. The notices are mainly comprised of laundry lists of Plaintiff’s complaints about 

the law librarian at his current institution, his desire to make additional copies of certain legal 

documents, and his conflicts with the library schedule, among other issues. (Id.)

To the extent Plaintiff is requesting that the Court take judicial notice of the allegations 

made in each of these “notices,” the documents submitted do not contain the types of adjudicative 

facts that are judicially noticeable.1

If Plaintiff is attempting to allege further facts that are related to the underlying claims in 

this case, such facts should be included in his first amended complaint, in a single complaint, 

rather than filed haphazardly as individual notices each time Plaintiff believes his rights have 

been violated. Future documents filed as “notices” that are unrelated to the claims in this action 

may not be accepted for filing by the Court.

The Court further notes that Plaintiff never requests any form of relief in any of the 

various “notices.” Plaintiff is warned that in the future, documents requesting a court order must 

be styled as a “motion,” rather than a letter or a notice, and specify what relief is requested. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1). As Plaintiff has indicated difficulties accessing the law library at his 

institution, the Court will make a one-time exception and construe his various notices as a request 

for a further extension of time to file his first amended complaint. However, future requests for 

extension of time regarding this deadline must be filed as “motions” and will be subject to a 

 

1 Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that a court may judicially notice a fact 

that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s 

territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose 

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).

Case 1:19-cv-00226-DAD-BAM Document 32 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 3
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

3

narrow interpretation of what constitutes good cause.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for copies of appeal proceedings, (ECF No. 29), is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff is granted a third extension of time to file his first amended complaint;

3. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a first

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court’s October 30, 2019 

screening order or file a notice of voluntary dismissal; and

5. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure 

to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00226-DAD-BAM Document 32 Filed 02/13/20 Page 3 of 3