Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02239/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02239-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

18cv2239-DMS(BLM)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND DEAN MYERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. PARAMO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv2239-DMS(BLM)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT PLEADINGS

[ECF No. 32]

On April 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to “Supplement pleading[s],” which was accepted 

on discrepancy by this Court on April 5, 2019. ECF Nos. 31, 32. Plaintiff’s motion to “Supplement 

pleading[s]” requests that the Court: (1) provide Plaintiff with Court rules and procedures; (2) 

grant Plaintiff a temporary preliminary injunction; and (3) allow Plaintiff to file previously rejected 

supplemental pleadings—including three declarations “in support . . . of the Retaliation of the 

inmates who work in the” prison kitchen—to establish that “there is ‘Good Cause’ of action stated 

in the Original ECF of Retaliation.” ECF No. 32 at 2.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 26, 2018, Plaintiff initiated the instant litigation by filing a Complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his civil rights. ECF No. 1 (“Complaint”). 

Plaintiff’s Complaint named Daniel Paramo, A. Miller, Arlita Basto, and R. Arias as Defendants

and alleged both ADA and Eighth Amendment violations. Complaint at 1, 3, 8, 13. On 

Case 3:18-cv-02239-DMS-BLM Document 39 Filed 05/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
2

18cv2239-DMS(BLM)

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

September 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and on 

October 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed “General Allegations & Exhibits in Support of [his] Complaint.” 

ECF No. 5. On October 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for emergency injunctive relief and on 

November 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for a restraining order. ECF Nos. 7, 9. Plaintiff’s 

motion for emergency injunctive relief and his motion for a restraining order requested “that the 

Court ‘stop’ his dietary ‘harassment,’ direct Basto to serve him an ‘actual 2200 calorie diet,’ even 

if ‘that means double portions,’ and grant him a ‘single cell, and permanent for life,’ due to 

‘dangerous gang members’ in the building and yards.” ECF No. 10 (“November 2018 Order”) at 

9 (citing ECF Nos. 7, 9); see also ECF No. 7 at 2, 5–6; ECF No. 9 at 2–3.

On November 5, 2018, Judge Sabraw issued an order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis and dismissing sua sponte all claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint as to Wardens 

Paramo and Miller “for failing to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief [could] be granted.” 

November 2018 Order at 6–8. Finally, Judge Sabraw denied Plaintiff’s motions for emergency 

injunctive relief and a restraining order based on a lack of personal jurisdiction, and because the 

“potential harm and risk of injury [we]re merely speculative.” Id. at 9–12.

On November 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed what appeared to be a motion to amend his 

Complaint, but the motion was actually requesting modifications to Judge Sabraw’s November 

2018 Order. ECF No. 13. The Court denied1 Plaintiff’s motion on November 28, 2018, informing 

Plaintiff that he could not amend Judge Sabraw’s Order, but that Plaintiff was free to file a First 

Amended Complaint without leave of Court. ECF No. 14. On December 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed 

another motion to correct alleged errors in Judge Sabraw’s November 2018 Order, which was 

denied by Judge Sabraw on December 17, 2018. ECF Nos. 16, 17.

On January 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for a free copied set of 280 pages of exhibits

that Plaintiff had previously filed. ECF No. 19. On January 9, 2019, this Court denied Plaintiff’s 

motion for a copied set of exhibits, because Plaintiff failed to establish a specific need that would 

 

1 The Court granted, however, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file summons. 

ECF No. 14 at 2.

Case 3:18-cv-02239-DMS-BLM Document 39 Filed 05/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
3

18cv2239-DMS(BLM)

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

entitle Plaintiff to said copies free of charge. ECF No. 20 at 3–4. 

On March 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed supplemental documents seeking among other things

judicial notice and again, to modify Judge Sabraw’s November 2018 Order. ECF No. 26-1. The 

Court rejected Plaintiff’s March 22, 2019 filing because it did not comply with local rules, there 

remained no pending motions for Plaintiff’s filing to supplement, and because the filing sought 

to rebut Judge Sabraw’s November 2018 Order after Plaintiff was repeatedly instructed that 

such a request was improper. ECF No. 26.

A few days later, on March 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second document entitled judicial 

notice, which set forth “Evidence In Support of ‘Nunc Pro Tunc’ of Retaliation” and again, was 

filed “[i]n rebuttal to Judge [Sabraw’s November 2018] Order.” ECF No. 27-1. Plaintiff’s March 

26, 2019 filing was rejected on discrepancy by this Court because Plaintiff was improperly 

attempting to rebut Judge Sabraw’s Order for the fourth time. ECF No. 27. Finally, on April 5, 

2019, Plaintiff filed the instant request to “Supplemental pleading[s],” which this Court accepted 

on discrepancy. ECF Nos. 31, 32. 

II. ACCESS TO COURT RULES

 Plaintiff previously requested copies from this Court in his January 3, 2019 motion. ECF 

No. 19. In his prior motion, Plaintiff stated that he wrote to the Clerk of Court for copies and 

that the Clerk of Court responded that the request should be made to the Records Section and 

must be “accompanied by a check or money order.” Id. at 1–2, 4. Plaintiff attached to his 

motion the form sent to him by the Clerk of Court, which included the cost of the requested 

copies. Id. at 4. This Court denied Plaintiff’s prior motion for free copies on January 9, 2019, 

because Plaintiff failed to establish that he had a specific need to receive said copies free of 

charge. ECF No. 20 at 3–4. Moving to Plaintiff’s instant request to supplement his pleadings, 

Plaintiff is now requesting free copies of Court rules and procedures. ECF No. 32 at 1.

A. Legal Standard

While “prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts,” Bounds v. Smith, 

430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977), there is no constitutional right to receive photocopies free of charge. 

Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1990), overruled on other grounds by Lewis v. 

Case 3:18-cv-02239-DMS-BLM Document 39 Filed 05/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
4

18cv2239-DMS(BLM)

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

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); see also Jones v. Franzen, 697 F.2d 801, 803 (7th Cir. 1983) 

(“[B]road as the constitutional concept of liberty is, it does not include the right to xerox.”); 

Wanninger v. Davenport, 697 F.2d 992, 994 (11th Cir. 1983) (finding no violation of “appellant’s 

constitutional rights when [prison officials] refused to provide him with free photocopies . . . .”); 

Reynolds v. Wagner, 128 F.3d 166, 183 (3d Cir, 1997) ([T]here is no First Amendment right to 

subsidized [legal] mail or photocopying.”). 

The rule prohibiting free photocopies is the same for plaintiffs proceeding in forma 

pauperis. See In re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir. 1990) (Title 28 U.S.C. section 1915 

“waives only ‘prepayment of fees and costs and security . . .’ [but] does not give the litigant a 

right to have documents copied and returned to him at government expense.”); Hadsell v. 

Comm’r Internal Revenue Service, 107 F.3d 750, 752 (9th Cir. 1997); Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 

478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) (explaining that title 28 U.S.C. section 1915—governing proceedings in 

forma pauperis—does not waive the payment of fees or expenses required for an indigent’s 

witnesses); Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211–12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (quoting United 

States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976) (holding that “the expenditure of public funds 

[on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress,” and that 28 

U.S.C. section 1915 does not provide such authorization); Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 159 (3d 

Cir. 1993) (courts are not authorized “to commit federal monies for payment of necessary 

expenses in a civil suit brought by an indigent litigant.”); St. Hilaire v. Winhelm, 1996 WL 119505 

(9th Cir. Mar. 18, 1996) (“There is no statutory requirement for the government to provide a 

litigant proceeding in forma pauperis with copies of deposition transcripts.”). Nevertheless, 

“although a prisoner does not have an unlimited right to free copying, some reasonable means 

of access to a photocopy machine will be necessary to protect an inmate's right of access to the 

courts.” Armstrong v. Scribner, 2008 WL 268974, at *20 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2008) (quoting Giles 

v. Tate, 907 F. Supp. 1135, 1138 (S.D. Ohio 1995)).

B. Discussion

Plaintiff requests a copy of Court rules and procedures, stating: “I have written to the 

Court for the Rules and procedures with no success? May I Have those from the Court?” ECF 

Case 3:18-cv-02239-DMS-BLM Document 39 Filed 05/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
5

18cv2239-DMS(BLM)

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

No. 32 at 1. Plaintiff further states that he is “not afforded the quality time (4 hrs a week) to 

research all procedures of Civil and Criminal Law, as to Pre-Law Students and practicing 

Attorney’s.” Id. Plaintiff cites Cody v. Weber, 256 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2001) to support his 

request for free copies, which concerned an inmate plaintiff’s right of access to the Court. Id. 

Therefore, it appears Plaintiff is requesting free copies of Court rules while alleging that he is 

not afforded proper access to the Court. See ECF No. 32 at 1. Because Plaintiff has not filed a 

motion regarding his access to the Court, Plaintiff’s vague statement that he is “not afforded 

quality [law Library] time” will be addressed only in the context of his request for free copies. 

See Nelson v. Ignacio, 28 F.3d 107 (9th Cir. 1994) (affirming the district court’s holding that a 

plaintiff “failed to show that he ha[d] been denied meaningful access to the courts because 

inmates have no constitutional right to free and unlimited photocopying . . . .”). Plaintiff states 

nothing else concerning his request for Court rules, nor does Plaintiff state what Court rules he 

is seeking (e.g., Local Civil Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, etc.). See generally ECF 

No. 32. 

As stated in this Court’s January 9, 2019 Order, absent a showing of specific need, Plaintiff 

is not entitled to copies of documents free of charge. ECF No. 20 at 3–4. Plaintiff set forth the 

same reason for requesting copies in his prior motion—that he is not afforded adequate library 

time. ECF Nos. 19, 32. However, Plaintiff’s statement is vague and unsupported by evidence. 

See ECF No. 32. Plaintiff appears to allege that limited library access is the reason behind his 

request for copies, but Plaintiff has not established that he is unable to obtain copies of the 

relevant rules from the prison library. Instead, Plaintiff expects the Court to determine which 

rules are relevant and then provide all of the relevant rules to him free of charge. While on 

certain occasions, courts in this district have allowed prisoners to receive free photocopies, those 

instances are generally limited to situations where the plaintiff must respond to a motion, or 

correct deficiencies in their pleadings. See, e.g., Martines v. Klein, 2013 WL 4026758, at *1 

(S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2013) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 350–55) (“While the Court is under no 

obligation to provide Plaintiff free photocopies . . . the Court . . . direct[s] the Clerk to provide 

Plaintiff with a copy of his First Amended Complaint . . . and the . . . Order which outline[d] the 

Case 3:18-cv-02239-DMS-BLM Document 39 Filed 05/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
6

18cv2239-DMS(BLM)

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

deficiencies of that pleading . . . .”); Garcia v. C.D.C.R., et al., No. 3:12cv1084-IEG(KCS), CM/ECF 

Doc. No. 22, at *2–3 (S.D. Cal Mar. 4, 2013) (stating that inmates are not entitled to photocopies 

of pleadings, but allowing the plaintiff to receive copies of his complaint and exhibits in order to 

meaningfully respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss). 

Here, given the breadth of the request, the lack of statutory authorization for such an 

expense, and Plaintiff’s failure to establish a specific need related to the instant case for a specific 

rule, the Court declines to authorize the requested production of documents. Furthermore,

Plaintiff’s request for free copies is stated alongside his request to supplement pleadings for the 

improper purpose of rebutting Judge Sabraw’s November 2018 Order and supplementing

Plaintiff’s motions, which have already been decided. See ECF Nos. 32; 26-1. Accordingly, the 

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a copy of Court rules and procedures.

III. TEMPORARY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff requests a “Temporary Preliminary Injunction, (cease and desist order) to stop 

the ‘DOUBLE CELLING’ of inmates who will endanger [Plaintiff’s] life, by either cell abuse or by 

[Plaintiff] contracting their diseases . . . .” ECF No. 32 at 1–2. Plaintiff further requests: 

[A second] temporary preliminary injunction “cease and desist” order from the 

Dieticians and CTC culinary Officials, to stop showing the Grievance CDCR 22’s to 

their subordinates and culinary workers who handle and prepare the (special-Diet) 

means for the (ADA) inmates and to only allow the prep[a]rations be made by the 

supervisors, due to inmates Retaliation, can contaminate or harm the FOODS.

Id. at 2. 

In order to obtain a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, a plaintiff is 

required to file a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) or (b). See Moses v. 

GMAC Mortg., LLC, 2010 WL 2775634, at *6 (S.D. Cal. July 14, 2010) (“To obtain a preliminary 

injunction, a plaintiff must file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a).”). Here, 

though Plaintiff filed motions for injunctive relief and a restraining order in October and 

November of 2018, Judge Sabraw denied both of those motions in his November 2018 Order. 

November 2018 Order at 9–12. Since that time, however, Plaintiff has not filed a new motion 

Case 3:18-cv-02239-DMS-BLM Document 39 Filed 05/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
7

18cv2239-DMS(BLM)

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

for either injunctive relief or a restraining order. See generally Dkt. On March 21, 2019, Plaintiff 

did attempt to file a motion for judicial notice and to supplement pleadings, which included 

declarations in support of Plaintiff’s prior motions for injunctive relief and a restraining order. 

See ECF No. 26-1. However, this document was rejected on discrepancy because it attempted 

to improperly modify Judge Sabraw’s original November 2018 Order and supplement motions 

that had already been decided. See ECF No. 26 at 1. In addition, even if Plaintiff’s March 21, 

2019 rejected supplemental pleadings had been accepted, Plaintiff did not file a new motion for 

injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order. See id. Instead, Plaintiff was attempting to 

supplement his prior motions, which had already been decided by the Court. See id.; ECF No. 

26-1; November 2018 Order. Because there is no pending motion for injunctive relief, Plaintiff’s 

request for a preliminary injunction in his request to supplement pleadings is improper and the 

Court DENIES it. See Moses, 2010 WL 2775634, at *6.

IV. SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS SUPPORTING RETALIATION CLAIM

Plaintiff is requesting to submit previously rejected pleadings, which include three 

declarations in support “of the Retaliation of the inmates who work in the (Culinary kitchens and 

CTC kitchens).” ECF No. 32 at 2. Plaintiff acknowledges that the declarations were included in 

Plaintiff’s supplemental pleadings, which were rejected by this Court on March 22, 2019. Id.; 

ECF No. 26-1.

A. Legal Standard

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d):

On motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to 

serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event 

that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented. The court may 

permit supplementation even though the original pleading is defective in stating a 

claim or defense. The court may order that the opposing party plead to the 

supplemental pleading within a specified time.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). “‘Rule 15(d) provides a mechanism for parties to file additional causes of 

action based on facts that didn't exist when the original complaint was filed.’” Burnett v. Dugan, 

2011 WL 1002171, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 

Case 3:18-cv-02239-DMS-BLM Document 39 Filed 05/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
8

18cv2239-DMS(BLM)

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

WL 1002145 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2011), aff’d, 536 F. App'x 739 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Eid v. 

Alaska Airlines, Inc., 621 F.3d 858, 874 (9th Cir. 2010)).

B. Discussion

Here, Plaintiff styled his motion as one for leave to supplement his pleadings, but the 

documents Plaintiff seeks to file state that they are in support of ECF Nos. 7 and 9—Plaintiff’s 

previously decided motions for injunctive relief and a restraining order—and in rebuttal to Judge 

Sabraw’s November 2018 Order. ECF No. 26-1 at 1. Therefore, instead of supplementing his 

pleadings, it appears that Plaintiff is attempting to supplement prior motions and challenge 

Judge Sabraw’s November 2018 Order. Plaintiff has repeatedly been told that this is not an 

appropriate request. However, within the documents Plaintiff seeks to file, Plaintiff states that 

he “should be allowed to add a retaliation claim to his complaint,” making it appear that Plaintiff 

could be seeking leave to amend his Complaint. Id. at 26-1 at 29. If Plaintiff wants to amend 

his Complaint, he may file a motion requesting permission to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff 

is not allowed to amend his pleadings after a judge has ruled on them. Plaintiff also is not 

allowed to amend or rebut an order issued by a judge. If Plaintiff wants to ask a judge to

reconsider a previously issued order, Plaintiff must file a timely motion for reconsideration that 

complies with the relevant rules. See Local Rule 7.1(i)(1–2). Plaintiff’s request to file 

supplemental pleadings in support of his prior motions and to rebut Judge Sabraw’s November 

2018 Order is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/3/2019

Case 3:18-cv-02239-DMS-BLM Document 39 Filed 05/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8