Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00276/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00276-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELLY B. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. PHUI, ET. AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00276-HBK

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE, DIRECTING CLERK 

TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S DOCUMENTS, 

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

STRIKE

(Doc. Nos. 24, 25, 32)

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to strike, filed on October 27, 2021. 

(Doc. No. 25). In response, Plaintiff filed as a motion to strike directed at Defendants’ motion on 

November 18, 2021. (Doc. No. 32).

Plaintiff Kelly B. Davis initiated this action proceeding pro se by filing a prisoner civil 

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff is proceeding on his first 

Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. No. 10). Defendants filed their answer. (Doc. No. 17). A 

scheduling and briefing order was issued in this case and discovery should be underway. (Doc. 

No. 22).

Pursuant to the Court’s inherent power to manage its docket, Defendants move to strike 

documents Plaintiff filed with the Court on October 25, 2021 (Doc. No. 24), which include a 

unsworn declaration from Plaintiff’s sister and two letters from a criminal attorney. (Doc. No. 25 

at 1-2). Defendants explain these documents were not directed at any dispositive motion and 

Case 1:20-cv-00276-KES-HBK Document 41 Filed 02/10/22 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

otherwise fail to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules. (Id.at 1).

Defendants specifically argue the documents should be stricken because: Plaintiff did not sign the 

filing contrary to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11; the documents do not accompany any 

motion for summary judgment or other relief; and, the documents do not comply with evidentiary 

rules or have evidentiary value (the declaration wasn’t made under penalty of perjury required 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and two unauthenticated letters, nearly identical, prepared by an 

attorney). (Id. at 1-2) (internal citations omitted).

In response, Plaintiff explains he is appearing without counsel and incarcerated and is 

learning as he goes. (Doc. 32 at 2). Plaintiff submits that his sister’s declaration is “right now 

being notarized,” and seeks permission to re-file the documents once they are properly notarized. 

(Id. at 1-2). 

Both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and Eastern District of California Local Rule 

131(b) require all pleadings, motions and papers be signed by at least one attorney of record, or 

by the party personally if the party is proceeding without counsel. See also Fields v. Vogel, 2014 

WL 127488 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014) (recommending district court strike unsigned pleadings and 

further recommending court grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which was later 

adopted by the district court). Further, as Defendants point out, documents are not randomly filed 

in Court, but instead should accompany a motion for summary judgment, or a motion seeking 

other relief. 

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ arguments are well taken. The Court directs the 

Clerk to strike Plaintiff’s documents, filed on October 25, 2021. Plaintiff may choose to attach 

these documents to a proper motion or opposition to a motion at the appropriate time. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s motion to strike (Doc. No. 25) is GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Doc. No. 32), construed as his opposition to Defendant’s 

motion to strike, is DENIED to the extent it seeks any relief.

3. The Clerk of court shall strike the documents Plaintiff’s filed on October 25, 2021 from 

the record. (Doc. No. 24).

Case 1:20-cv-00276-KES-HBK Document 41 Filed 02/10/22 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

Dated: February 9, 2022 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00276-KES-HBK Document 41 Filed 02/10/22 Page 3 of 3