Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00416/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00416-16/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY DEWAYNE LEE TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO CITY FIRE DEPT., et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-0416 TLN DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. This case proceeds on plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint filed on October 14, 2020. 

(ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff has filed a document purporting to be a further amended complaint. (ECF 

No. 70.) Plaintiff’s motion requesting discovery is also before the court. (ECF No. 71.) Defendant 

has filed a motion to strike plaintiff’s further amended complaint. (ECF No. 72.)

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 70)

On July 11, 2022, plaintiff filed a document styled as an amended complaint. (ECF No. 

70.) Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend its pleading once

as a matter of course within (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) 21 days after service of a 

responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is 

earlier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the 

////

Case 2:19-cv-00416-TLN-SCR Document 73 Filed 08/02/22 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

opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave, which should freely be given when justice 

so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

Here, defendant’s answer was filed on April 4, 2022. (ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff is no longer

permitted to amend his pleading as a matter of course. Plaintiff also has not obtained defendant’s 

written consent or the court’s leave to amend. Sua sponte, the court strikes the amended 

complaint filed on July 11, 2022. This case proceeds on the fourth amended complaint filed on 

October 14, 2020. (ECF No. 22.)

Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 71)

On July 11, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion titled “Motion Requesting Cal. Gov’t Code § 

11507.6 Request for Discovery.” This is the second time plaintiff has filed such a motion. (See 

ECF No. 66.) As before, it is not clear whether plaintiff has served this document or any 

discovery request referenced in this document on the defendant.

As plaintiff was previously informed, discovery requests must be sent to the defendant’s 

counsel rather than to the court. Neither discovery requests served on an opposing party nor a 

party’s responses should be filed with the court until such time as a party seeks relief from the 

court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff does not indicate he seeks any relief 

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, the court will disregard this motion for 

discovery.

Caution about Further Filings

The record reflects plaintiff continues to file documents styled as motions which are not, 

in fact, motions. Plaintiff is again cautioned that a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis may 

suffer restricted access to the court if an excessive number of motions or improperly filed 

documents are filed in a pending action. See DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 

1990); Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989). The court understands that plaintiff 

lacks legal training and proceeds without counsel. Nevertheless, plaintiff shall make a good faith

effort to restrict his court filings to those allowed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

////

////

Case 2:19-cv-00416-TLN-SCR Document 73 Filed 08/02/22 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

Order

In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Sua sponte, the court STRIKES plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 70) as 

improperly filed.

2. In light of the above, defendant’s motion to strike (ECF No. 72) is denied as moot.

3. The court DISREGARDS plaintiff’s motion for discovery (ECF No. 71).

Dated: August 1, 2022

DLB7

turn0416.disc

Case 2:19-cv-00416-TLN-SCR Document 73 Filed 08/02/22 Page 3 of 3