Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00040/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00040-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER ANAYA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00040-MJS (PC)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING REQUESTS FOR 

RECORDS (ECF Nos. 101, 102);

(2) DENYING MOTION FOR 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (ECF No. 

105)

(2) DISREGARDING LETTERS AND 

NOTICES (ECF Nos. 103, 104, 106, 107, 

108, 109); AND

(3) DISREGARDING LODGED 

COMPLAINT (ECF No. 113).

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. Plaintiff initiated this action on 

August 13, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) Since then, he has filed nearly one hundred submissions

with the Court. 

On January 15, 2016, the Court issued an order addressing many of these 

submissions. (ECF No. 100.) Therein, the Court denied Plaintiff’s requests for records 

Case 1:16-cv-00040-MJS Document 114 Filed 03/15/16 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

(ECF Nos. 15, 60, 64, and 71), denied his requests for subpoenas (ECF Nos. 37, 40, 52, 

84, 88, 90, 91, and 92), denied his requests for a settlement conference (ECF Nos. 53 

and 98), denied his request for service of process (ECF No. 57), and denied his motions 

to compel (ECF Nos. 80 and 87). Plaintiff also was warned that his onslaught of letters, 

notices, affidavits, and documents (e.g., ECF Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 24, 

25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 41, 43, 49, 51, 55, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, 

66, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 89) would not be considered in 

screening his complaint. Plaintiff additionally was advised that the Court will not serve as 

a repository for his evidence, and that further such submissions could result in sanctions. 

On February 22, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, and his first, 

second, and third amended complaints, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 111.) Plaintiff 

was advised that his amended pleading must be complete unto itself without reference 

to other documents. Plaintiff filed his fourth amended complaint on March 2, 2016. (ECF 

No. 112.)

Despite the foregoing rulings and admonitions, Plaintiff continues to submit 

documents to the Court.

Plaintiff’s requests for records (ECF Nos. 101 and 102) and for a settlement 

conference (ECF No. 105) will be denied on the same grounds as Plaintiff’s prior 

motions. Until the Court screens Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it states cognizable 

claims, it cannot be served. Absent service of the complaint and appearance of a 

defendant, Plaintiff’s request for a settlement conference is premature. With regard to

records, the Court generally will not open discovery until a defendant has been served 

and answered the complaint. Furthermore, as Plaintiff has been advised, his discovery 

requests must be served on Defendants and not the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5; Local 

Rules 135, 250.2, 250.3, 250.4. 

Based on the Court’s prior admonitions, Plaintiff’s letters and notices (ECF Nos. 

103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109) and his lodged complaint (ECF No. 113), will be 

Case 1:16-cv-00040-MJS Document 114 Filed 03/15/16 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

disregarded. Only the contents of the Fourth Amended Complaint (ECF No. 112) will be 

considered at the screening stage. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s complaint in due 

course. 

Plaintiff is ORDERED to refrain from filing further duplicative and 

unauthorized letters, notices, and CDCR 602 forms with the Court; indeed until 

such time as the Court screens and issues its Order on the viability of his fourth 

amended complaint, the Court can envision nothing else Plaintiff might file that 

could possibly benefit him, the Court or his case. 

Further filings in the above vein will not be accepted for filing but will instead be 

summarily returned to Plaintiff. If Plaintiff continues to attempt to file such successive 

and unwarranted submissions, he can expect sanctions, to include monetary sanctions, 

sanctions striking all or part of his claims, or the like. See Thompson v. Housing 

Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that in exercising its power to control its 

own docket, the Court may impose sanctions). The Court has previously warned Plaintiff 

of the possibility of sanctions. This is his final warning before sanctions are imposed. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s requests for records (ECF Nos. 101, 102) are DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s request for settlement conference (ECF No. 105) is DENIED 

without prejudice; and

3. Plaintiff’s letters and notices (ECF Nos. 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109), and 

his lodged complaint (ECF No. 113) are DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00040-MJS Document 114 Filed 03/15/16 Page 3 of 3