Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01063/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01063-0/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

RYAN A. BARBA,

Plaintiff,

v.

FERNANDO GONZALES, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-1063-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUBMIT

DOCUMENTATION

(ECF No. 8)

Plaintiff Ryan Barba (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is

Plaintiff’s Motion to Submit Documentation for the Sole Purpose of Verification; it asks the

Court to receive four documents that Plaintiff alleges will “verify and solidify” his complaint.

(ECF No. 8.) 

Plaintiff is advised that the Court cannot serve as a repository for the parties’

evidence. At this stage in the litigation, the Court must presume that all plausible

allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint are true. See Warshaw v. Xoma Corp., 74

F.3d 955, 597 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, no documentation is needed to support Plaintiff’s

allegations. If Plaintiff desires to amend his complaint to include information contained in

the materials attached to the instant motion, he may do so at this time without leave of the

Court. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(1) (“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter

of course.”) 

As explained in the Court’s First Informational Order, the parties may not file

Case 1:10-cv-01063-MJS Document 11 Filed 07/26/10 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

-2-

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).

(ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was previously informed that improperly submitted evidence would

be returned. (Id.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Submit Documentation for the Sole Purpose of

Verification is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to return the original motion and

supporting documents to Plaintiff if they have not already been discarded. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01063-MJS Document 11 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 2