Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01797/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01797-4/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

GUILLERMO TRUJILLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOMEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01797 DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR EXHIBITS 

(Document 14)

Plaintiff Guillermo Trujillo (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in 

this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on November 17, 2014. The 

complaint is awaiting screening.

On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to file a “supplemental” complaint pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). On December 19, 2014, the Court issued an order explaining 

that Plaintiff did not need leave to file an amended complaint at this stage of the proceedings. The 

Court also provided Plaintiff with the requirements for amending. 

On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed another motion to file a supplemental complaint. On 

December 23, 2014, the Court disregarded Plaintiff’s motion. The Court informed Plaintiff that 

could file an amended complaint, as explained by the prior order. The Court also explained to 

Plaintiff that to the extent he wanted to add the allegations in the motion, he could not do so.

Case 1:14-cv-01797-DAD-DLB Document 15 Filed 03/02/15 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

On December 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a “motion for exhibits.” He attached two exhibits that 

appear to relate to his original allegations.

On December 29, 2014, the Court disregarded the motion and returned the exhibits. The 

Court explained that it was unclear whether Plaintiff would be filing an amended complaint, and the 

Court would therefore not docket the exhibits. The Court told Plaintiff that he may file the exhibits 

with an amended complaint.

On February 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed another motion “for presentation of exhibits.” He 

attaches documents to support an interference with mail claim under the First Amendment. 

However, Plaintiff’s operative complaint relates to excessive force, and the Court will not docket the 

exhibits. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is instructed to return 

Plaintiff’s documents. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01797-DAD-DLB Document 15 Filed 03/02/15 Page 2 of 2